So you're saying that dragons are embodied legends of people/heroes?

Like much in TES lore, it's better not to get hung up on what things are in other fantasy settings. Sure they maybe something else in D&D but this is TES and in TES they're dragons. Otherwise the Dwarves will never make sense to you.

Yeah, I'm with you and Vaz on this one. I take it as further proof that we're are not dealing with regular souls here, but pieces of time, or at the very least lesser spirits who emerged right after Akatosh.

I'm not going as far to say that "x dragon used to be x" but the idea of belief changing something retroactively is very significant in TES. So Ysgramor wasn't a dragon and never was but at the same time he becomes a dragon and always was. When myths overlap, which one is the truth?

I remember reading somewhere that Kurt Kuhlmann described dragons as "ideological time-machines" or something like that.

To me there's this nagging sense of too many coincidences. Heroes being called dragons, dragons being ideas given form (ideologies/gods) and the significance of the walking ways. Hell, even Auriel supposedly went through dracochrysalis to escape Mundus. Being associated with dragons is a big deal and, as this is TES lore, it normally means something deeper than just allegory.

The only thing I have with this is the same thing I have with draugr: why are they all violent and destructive, at least until getting their heads stoves in, and sometimes after? Weren't any of these myths/legends good people in life? Why aren't they know? Or does the malicious will of the evil mean they are the only ones coming back/retroactively mantling?

I'll answer yours and Matt Feeney's question at the same time.

Tosh-Raka, I think he did mantle either Akatosh or Alduin. This is why I said many mortals and not all mortals. Ysgramor, and many of his companions that are described as draconic, I think are ultimately metaphors.

I make complete exemption for those who are Dragonborn.

We need to remember what qualities dragons represent:

Were they not superior in every way to the hordes of small, soft creatures that worshipped them? For dragons, power equals truth. They had the power, so therefore it must be truth.

Good and evil is too black and white, we're talking more about domination, invasion. The Ruling King. The Return and the Companions of that era who grow up within the dragon cult would certainly understand these principles and what dragons really are.

That really doesn't seem much less black and white, though. Since when did the Nords or the Companions dominate or invade things for no other reason than that they could? At least I've never seen any examples of things like that.

The Ancient Atmorans were fleeing natural disaster and war in their homeland. The history of the Nordic empires is no different than most real life human history; wars over land, resources, and defense.

Sure, war happens. A lot of times that's where heroes are born. But it doesn't really address the question(s). If we're considering this retroactive-mantling-into-dragons, then why is all that's left of these people "domination"?