Elder Scrolls Lore » Discussions


Lore: Which Way Do You Swing?

Tags: #Discussion 
  • Member
    February 15

    Mr. said:

     By the time I was getting to know TES lore I prefered the Dunmer's, and while I still like it I've found out that, surprisingly, my previous "nemesis" race now holds my lore favoritism and has also taken the first place from the Dunmer as my favorite race generally speaking: the Nords.

    The dunmer are a fascinating people, ornary and weird at times but certainly fascinating. I personally enjoy looking at the Tribunal a whole lot, not specifically at how they are worshipped but rather as to why they are worshipped and how they managed to enforce this worship for as long as they did. In a way it reminds me a bit of some cases of Divine monarchies where the monarch of a nation claimed to have been named by god himself (whichever god they worshipped) but as if someone over at Beth went with that idea and went absolutely nuts on it. What's it about them that you liked that much? there has to be a reason they were your favorite race. (you know other than being misinformed; Nords and Argonians for the win! :P)

    As to nords... These weird magic-shunning, nearly landlocked scandinavian celtic wannabes and their honorbound philosophy have an important place in my personal hub of lore knowledge. I'm personally most interested in their legends; their songs of the return and their dragon wars so to say. Modern 4E nords are a bit too squishy for me, went too imperial for my taste, which is about the only reason I would ever consider joining Ulfric but that's a discussion for another day.

    I've got to wonder though, if the dunmer were your favorites how in Oblivion did you end up as a Nord lover Edd?

     

  • Member
    February 16

    Teineeva said:

    Mr. said:

     By the time I was getting to know TES lore I prefered the Dunmer's, and while I still like it I've found out that, surprisingly, my previous "nemesis" race now holds my lore favoritism and has also taken the first place from the Dunmer as my favorite race generally speaking: the Nords.

    The dunmer are a fascinating people, ornary and weird at times but certainly fascinating. I personally enjoy looking at the Tribunal a whole lot, not specifically at how they are worshipped but rather as to why they are worshipped and how they managed to enforce this worship for as long as they did. In a way it reminds me a bit of some cases of Divine monarchies where the monarch of a nation claimed to have been named by god himself (whichever god they worshipped) but as if someone over at Beth went with that idea and went absolutely nuts on it. What's it about them that you liked that much? there has to be a reason they were your favorite race. (you know other than being misinformed; Nords and Argonians for the win! :P)

    As to nords... These weird magic-shunning, nearly landlocked scandinavian celtic wannabes and their honorbound philosophy have an important place in my personal hub of lore knowledge. I'm personally most interested in their legends; their songs of the return and their dragon wars so to say. Modern 4E nords are a bit too squishy for me, went too imperial for my taste, which is about the only reason I would ever consider joining Ulfric but that's a discussion for another day.

    I've got to wonder though, if the dunmer were your favorites how in Oblivion did you end up as a Nord lover Edd?

     

     

    Now for the Dunmer there are a few good reasons as to why I like them, but the one that's on top of my mind is the influences they take from East Asia, especially Japanese early and feudal history and culture. That whole thing about respecting and honoring their ancestors, the noble houses of Morrowind (my favorite, House Redoran, seems to draw some inspiration for its code of honor from Bushido, the samurai's way), the conservative traditions of the nomadic Ashlanders (sorry, if I was a Dunmer I'd never have abandoned our original faith. But I do like Saint Vivec)... Of course, I know that the Dunmer are influenced by many other cultures from Earth, but I'm most interested in their influences hailing from East Asia. And then there's the history of the Chimer and Dunmer, which I also find fascinating. It's all so mystic and prophetic.

     When it comes to the Nords, it just happened. One day I decided I would try to write my "definitive Dragonborn", and I decided he had to be a Nord. After that, I started digging into Viking culture, religion and especially their tales and sagas. I fell in love with all of it, and the connection with Nirn's Nords is obvious, so it was only natural they'd grow in my esteem as I was writing my character's background. I even started to consider supporting the Stormcloacks, and I used to be a long-time Imperial supporter!

  • Member
    February 19

    As much as I enjoy the metaphysical and delving into theoretical lore in an attempt to establish a "one theory of everything" string theory style, I think what I actually enjoy most is the small things, the day-to-day observations or discoveries which can be used in-character. Dunmeri cuisine, Argonian music, Orc clans and the microcultures within each are the things which have applications in terms of projects or in-game RP.

    That said, I tend to enjoy that stuff as it applies to the human races most with Dunmer being the exception. Imperials, Nords... hell even Bretons... normally get my attention over Bosmer, Khajiit and 'Gonians. Altmer have long fascinated me and so I pay attention to anything high elven, while Redguards have this string theory-breaking mystique which makes them a fascinating challenge.

    Above all, though, it is probably Imperial myth, history and culture which intrigue me most. The Remenada, Song of Pelinal, and trials of Saint Alessia were the things to first suck me in. I sort of can't let go of that.

  • February 23

    I have always found myself drawn to the Nords. Whether it was their strong-will-survive mentality, or whether it was the nature of Shor (or Lorkhan if you insist). I love the Nordic Pantheon and the neverending war with the mer. After all, what it comes down is a never-ending cycle of revenge. Atmorans (I maybe mispelling that) show up on the Snow Elves doorstep. Some elves get mad and attack Saarthal. Atmorans get mad and conquer the whole of skyrim...and more. After all the Empire wouldn't have even been established without the blood, sweat, and tears of hard-working Nords. Skyrim does, indeed, belong to the Nords.

    (In summary, give me Nordic history over Altmer lore anyday. ;))

  • March 28
    I personally enjoy all of the various forms of lore in TES, and most of them are simply retelling the same story colored by different lenses. From a personal standpoint, I tend to view all Aedra and Daedra as actual beings in ES lore, with some merely being different names for identical entities. More than preferring one interpretation over others, what I most enjoy is looking back at them all and connecting the dots, seeing where a collective history can be found.
  • Member
    May 28

    I recommended to come here by Paws and post my opinion on ES Lore. I personally find ES Lore to be confusing and not very sightful/useful to an extent. There are too many obscurities in it, unfinished ends, not enough information on some subjects, and items/topics/ ideas that are too vague. There really isn't one particular pantheon in the series that catches my attention or draws me in, except for maybe the Old Nordic but even then there isn't a whole on it. I really wish ES Lore was as defined as LotR or even D&D, that way someone can easily read something and be able to pick on it easily or even understand it with doing so much research or find something that leads to a dead end.

  • May 28

    David said:

    I recommended to come here by Paws and post my opinion on ES Lore. I personally find ES Lore to be confusing and not very sightful/useful to an extent. There are too many obscurities in it, unfinished ends, not enough information on some subjects, and items/topics/ ideas that are too vague. There really isn't one particular pantheon in the series that catches my attention or draws me in, except for maybe the Old Nordic but even then there isn't a whole on it. I really wish ES Lore was as defined as LotR or even D&D, that way someone can easily read something and be able to pick on it easily or even understand it with doing so much research or find something that leads to a dead end.

    That´s the thing actually. TES Lore´s obscurity, the interpretations and points of view are what makes so unique and interesting. Because whole Lore is interpreted it graduates down to more interpretations and no other game´s Lore is so discussed as TES. What games give you is only shallow look on what is on the surface and the fun begins when you start turning the stones. 

    But I understand it isn´t for everyone. Yeah, I understand that. But it makes zero sense to me. :)

  • Member
    May 28

    The Lorc of Flowers said:

    David said:

    I recommended to come here by Paws and post my opinion on ES Lore. I personally find ES Lore to be confusing and not very sightful/useful to an extent. There are too many obscurities in it, unfinished ends, not enough information on some subjects, and items/topics/ ideas that are too vague. There really isn't one particular pantheon in the series that catches my attention or draws me in, except for maybe the Old Nordic but even then there isn't a whole on it. I really wish ES Lore was as defined as LotR or even D&D, that way someone can easily read something and be able to pick on it easily or even understand it with doing so much research or find something that leads to a dead end.

    That´s the thing actually. TES Lore´s obscurity, the interpretations and points of view are what makes so unique and interesting. Because whole Lore is interpreted it graduates down to more interpretations and no other game´s Lore is so discussed as TES. What games give you is only shallow look on what is on the surface and the fun begins when you start turning the stones. 

    But I understand it isn´t for everyone. Yeah, I understand that. But it makes zero sense to me. :)

    I really get that it is open to interpretations and different viewpoints, but I have seen where one person expresses a theory/view and Lore experts or such attack it and I just think everything was streamlined it would be better. Once, you start turning stones over though you tend to lead nowhere and you have no answers, and so your at a dead end and it just seems like why is this even in TES Lore or you want to form a theory or something and there isn't enough material to help you support it.

    I know it isn't for everyone, but it is a habit of mine, that I try to learn as much of the lore of something as I can if I love the game, movie or whatever, like what I did with LotR and D&D and now trying with TES.

  • Member
    May 28

    David said:

    I really get that it is open to interpretations and different viewpoints, but I have seen where one person expresses a theory/view and Lore experts or such attack it and I just think everything was streamlined it would be better. Once, you start turning stones over though you tend to lead nowhere and you have no answers, and so your at a dead end and it just seems like why is this even in TES Lore or you want to form a theory or something and there isn't enough material to help you support it.

    I know it isn't for everyone, but it is a habit of mine, that I try to learn as much of the lore of something as I can if I love the game, movie or whatever, like what I did with LotR and D&D and now trying with TES.

    I would hope something doesn't get attacked here. We might discuss and share points of view, but to pick something apart isn't the way to go about it - at least I'd hope not. It's hard to get the balance right with lore, for those less familiar might need a bit more detail and we fear coming across as condescending, while to those who are more experienced it comes across as a lecture :D So don't hold back on your Lorkhan discussion, he is a fascinating figure and a subject broad enouh to ensure many different opinions. Who knows, maybe Thorien would like to read it as she never got to finish her own project on The Missing God.

    Ok, so ES lore can be and is pretty solid. It is just the way in which it is presented that causes the issues.  Like, if we use TES V's Talos as an example, we can see that there are different opinions given to us by the in-game factions regarding his divinity. If we aren't careful, we could end up believing one side's story over another's - which is totally fair, the game allows us to have that freedom.

    Where it gets tricky for the lore group and extended community is in ascertaining the truth of the various faction's claims. To do that we need to look at as many sources as there are  and then form a consensus on which one has the repeated pattern of truth. Skyrim, at first glance, will have us believe that Talos was from Atmora, yet based on other sources about the current condition of that continent, we can dismiss that claim as being not entirely the full story. It's not until we hear mention of a Hjalti Early-Beard that we can then see that possibility of truth start to emerge, as the name and Breton background gels with another source, The Arcturian Heresy.

    We might never know the full story, and even now I can only describe his ascension and the roles of Wulfharth and Arctus in the enantiomorph in the most vaguest of ways, but we think we know enough as a community to say form a conclusion on the subject. Thus is it for all lore: The more sources, the better chance of finding that encyclopedia entry.

  • Member
    May 28

    Paws said:

    David said:

    I really get that it is open to interpretations and different viewpoints, but I have seen where one person expresses a theory/view and Lore experts or such attack it and I just think everything was streamlined it would be better. Once, you start turning stones over though you tend to lead nowhere and you have no answers, and so your at a dead end and it just seems like why is this even in TES Lore or you want to form a theory or something and there isn't enough material to help you support it.

    I know it isn't for everyone, but it is a habit of mine, that I try to learn as much of the lore of something as I can if I love the game, movie or whatever, like what I did with LotR and D&D and now trying with TES.

    I would hope something doesn't get attacked here. We might discuss and share points of view, but to pick something apart isn't the way to go about it - at least I'd hope not. It's hard to get the balance right with lore, for those less familiar might need a bit more detail and we fear coming across as condescending, while to those who are more experienced it comes across as a lecture :D So don't hold back on your Lorkhan discussion, he is a fascinating figure and a subject broad enouh to ensure many different opinions. Who knows, maybe Thorien would like to read it as she never got to finish her own project on The Missing God.

    Ok, so ES lore can be and is pretty solid. It is just the way in which it is presented that causes the issues.  Like, if we use TES V's Talos as an example, we can see that there are different opinions given to us by the in-game factions regarding his divinity. If we aren't careful, we could end up believing one side's story over another's - which is totally fair, the game allows us to have that freedom.

    Where it gets tricky for the lore group and extended community is in ascertaining the truth of the various faction's claims. To do that we need to look at as many sources as there are  and then form a consensus on which one has the repeated pattern of truth. Skyrim, at first glance, will have us believe that Talos was from Atmora, yet based on other sources about the current condition of that continent, we can dismiss that claim as being not entirely the full story. It's not until we hear mention of a Hjalti Early-Beard that we can then see that possibility of truth start to emerge, as the name and Breton background gels with another source, The Arcturian Heresy.

    We might never know the full story, and even now I can only describe his ascension and the roles of Wulfharth and Arctus in the enantiomorph in the most vaguest of ways, but we think we know enough as a community to say form a conclusion on the subject. Thus is it for all lore: The more sources, the better chance of finding that encyclopedia entry.

    No, I haven't seen anything like that on here, but I have elsewhere. I won't hold back on my Lorkhan discussion because I found him to be the fascinating Aedra of them all and theory isn't fully fleshed out and takes in real life religions to help my theory on him, which something I know some people in the Lore community, not this one, to have a fit.

    I get that, but what the Lore of him archiving CHIM and all of that business? Or how he is one of three shards of the Ash King or whatever? I mean the Skyrim just gives the very basic Lore of Talos, and yet there is a whole lot more stuff to learn about. Bethesda also has a problem of retconning Lore also, because in Daggerfall Mannimarco ascends to Godhood, and yet it gets retcon in Oblivion, so which is right.? Did he become the Necromancer's Moon and became a God or nah? 

    If you get more and more sources though wouldn't end up making it more confusing or even a higher chance of items being retconned? I know it seems like I bringing up more questions than answers, but there are, to me atleast, a lot of what ifs.