I've been reading up on Talos, Akatosh, enatiamorph etc.. Please tell me if the following summary is correct:


1. There once was a mortal named Hjalti. Hjatli became emperor with the help of Wulfharth (a undead Nord Dragonborn) and Zurin Arctus (a mage)
Later these three people fused together and became the oversoul/god known as Talos. Talos took Lorhkhan's role in the pantheon/ creation.

2. Lorkhan was killed after the creation of the mortal world. Yet part of him lived on as Shezzar and Shor. Later Lorkhan got a new aspect, Talos.

3. In the beginning their was a being named Borhamu who governed Time. Borhamu had different aspects like Auri-el and Alduin. After the creation of the world he died, just like all the other Aedra.
The combined belief of all mortals created a new group of Aedra, among them a new Borhamu.

Alessia created the Nine Divines pantheon. The combined belief of men created a a new aspect of Borhamu, Akatosh.

4. Borhamu and Lorkhan are both parts of the same god. King and rebel are one being.

My understanding is that:


1. Wulfharth is not a dragonborn. Wulfharth is a Shezarrine.

2. Shezarr and Shor are dead as Lorkhan is dead. These are all aspects of Lork: Shezarr the Cyrodiilic aspect, Shor the Nordic aspect and Lorkhan the Meri aspect. As Lork is "dead" all his aspects are "dead". But a dead Et'Ada is different from a dead mortal. As long as Anu and Padomay exist the mirror images of Aka-Lork exist. Look, even Aka and all his aspects are "dead" to some degree.

3. Auri-El used to be a mortal, the King of the Aldmers, and took part in the Ehlnofex War. He went dracocrysalis to ascend to godhood. As the End of Dawn Era of this kalpa is actually the End of last kalpa, we can assume Auri-El lived as a mortal during the End of last Kalpa. And when he ascend or much much later in the Merethic Era, he became an aspect of Aka, aka. Borhamu. How the Aedra are considered "dead" are the same as 2.

And Alessia did create Akatosh, but this Akatosh was only a different name of Auri-El. It was only nearly a thousand years later, when the Marukhati Selectives took up a dragonbreak lasted 1008 years that Akatosh got his elven features striped out, and became an individual aspect of Aka. Whether this Akatosh was one of the Selectives ascended or not are still debatable.

And by the way, what Alessia created was Eight Divines, as Shezarr was and is considered The Missing God, worshipped by the Cyrodiilics, yes, but never had his official place, and the Marukhati Selectives are more for some Monotheism. Offical Nine Divines were from the time when Talos got admitted as a Divine.

4. It is inaccurate to say "the same god", as they do differ from the base. (But yes, this is the thought of the Marukhati Selectives.) It is "from the very single source" or "sharing the same body", as time and space are inseperatable if they want to keep their meanings. It is just like you cannot say the different personas in the same body are "the same person". By that the King and the Rebel are different being, fighting to control the other one.

In an extremely simplified form you've pretty much got the outline. There's a lot of other, smaller details but on the whole, sure. I mean, Shor and Shezzar are dead too but dead in different ways. Bormahu as he is in Skyrim always existed but different, but Bormahu-as-something yeah, he was always about, apparently the Nords called him the Aka-Tusk.

Also, the gods can fight their foreign selves. This is stated pretty explicitly in the monomyth, so while "the same god" isn't untrue exactly, it's got connotations that aren't strictly correct. But overall good job.

Ok, this is something that's been bugging me for about a week:

Hjalti was the only part of Talos to survive & actually sit the throne, right? And Hjalti played the Auri-El role in the re-enactment of the Dawn conflict, right? So why is Talos an aspect of Lorkhan?

@Nihilee. While Auri-El did walk the earth during the Dawn, that doesn't mean he was "mortal". At the very least, the Altmer believe his identity pre-dates the Dawn.

Because Talos is Hjalti is Auriel is Akatosh is Lorkhan is Shezzar is Akatosh.

From what I understand.

And regarding Auri-El's walking the earth, in the dawn, there were no distinctions as mortal/immortal, at least not in the sense that we think about gods/mortals.

Lorkhan can never sit on the throne, as the King of this kalpa is Aka, and Lorkhan will remain the Rebel through the whole kalpa until this kalpa's end, then he will rip Aka's heart out and becomes the new King, at the Dawn of the next kalpa.

Well, if only the next kalpa would come.

Auri-El is in the same group with Shor, the remnant from the last kalpa and yes, as those were Dawn Era, all nonlinear occured and no one can tell truth.

I honestly can't even tell if you were trying to make a point here.

Regarding your how is Talos and aspect of Lorkhan question:

Talos is comprised of 3 parts.

So even though only Hjalti survives, Talos is still comprised Hjalti, Arctus, and Wulfharth, which means Talos includes the Lorkhan part of the enantiomorph.

Also worth considering is that "enantiomorph" means "mirror image". The King is enantiomorphic to the Rebel, so it is very hard (maybe impossible) to mantle the King without the Rebel also being mantled.

Apophis...

Of all the responses to your question, Nihilee's comments are the most accurate as far as I know

I spent two hours reviewing everything related to this topic and trying to wrap my head around it. It showed how little I knew. This topic was a great eye opener to the depth of the lore to this series!! More to the point, I also agree that Nihilee's explanation of it is also the most accurate!

I also cannot tell what you are specially referring to, all?

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I said is just what is in Shor son of Shor, right? As kalpa truns Aka-Lork switch their roles of King-Rebel, and this is the circle that had lasted kalpas with the number only god knows.

And during the current kalpa almost all aspects of Lork are all in the state of Missing. Shor is called the King but he is no where to be found because he is "dead", deader than other Aedra. A missing king is never a true king, and the nordic pantheon eventually got their dragon king Akatosh. (And this makes me think, what was the nature of the Dragon War, as it had King and Rebel elements, especially a dragon king.) We can have the mortal incarnates of Lorkhan but we cann't have the immortal living aspects of Lorkhan who is the enantimorph of the correspounding immortal Aka. That is to say, Lorkhan must be at a dead status because it was him who got the heart ripped out. He lose his battle to Aka, and he went to act as the Rebel "haunting" all the time.

And Talos can be considered more living than anyother aspects of Lorkhan, at least as living as Akatosh. That is only because Talos embodies both Aka and Lork during the Creation (and maybe we have to plus Magnus but it is debatable), that all the key element neccesary to the creation. Talos is the reflection of the original creation, which the main theme is nothing but the Love from Lorkhan, that his love was so strong that giving out the special idea and leading the creation to come true, while Aka and Magnus are neccesary supporting roles to the creation, one giving the support of Anu-Padomay dualism, and one giving the support of actual construction. That is to say, Talos wraps Akatosh into him during his birth, because the creation cannot occur without Aka, and by this Akatosh element presence that Talos is not considered Missing anymore, while he is still the aspect of Lorkhan, the only true creator of the creation.

Just for the record, I diverge here.

I do not agree that Talos is an aspect of Lorkhan. He achieved apotheosis by Mantling and became the divine responsible for War and Governance. He is a separate individual who succeeded in doing what Lorkhan wanted men to do.

Lorkhan remains Lorkhan. He is the space god twin of Aka the time god and he is still disembodied and roaming the world

Here are the issues I take with that:

1. Talos has never, as far as I am aware, been described as mantling either the whole triune of creation (Aka-Lor-Mag) or the whole triune of Dawn's End (Aka-Lor-Trini, the triune Talos actually most closely represents). He's just been described as the new Lorkh / Shezz. I don't really disagree with what you're saying, I just think that what you're saying disagrees with the conventional perception of Talos.

2. The more I think of this, the less it makes sense. Admittedly, I've never played Daggerfall, but as far as I'm aware, in that game you both talk with the spirit of Wulfhearth and use the soul of Zurin to power your golem. Neither of them experienced apotheosis.

3. This whole thing doesn't sit with the definitions of mantling we've been given. "Walk like them until they walk like you?" Hjalti walked like Auri-El, Wulf walked like Lorkhan, and Zurin walked like Trinimac. Each of them should have individually mantled separate gods. Perhaps a case could be made for Hjalti and Wulfhearth joint-mantling Lorkhan and Auri-El, under some enatiomorph clause, but what about Zurin?

Also, in real life, enatiomorph means mirror image only in the sense of reversed image, or opposite (it literally means opposite shape), not as in self-image. This is a completely tangenital point, but something that I thought was worth sharing.


Yes, and I'm going to be perfectly honest, I don't think the fault is neccessarily on your end, but even now, I'm really just having a hard time parsing your writing style. You don't make an extraordinary number of errors or omissions, but those few that you do make seem to be throwing me way off course. It probably has something to do with the distracted state I've been in while reading what you wrote. So, if I seem to be adressing a point you didn't actually make, or we otherwise begin to talk past eachother, that's why. This fault lies with me.


I'm fairly certain that's not the case. First, the issue of divine selfhood and role-taking is rather a bit more complex than you seem to think. Boethiah's Summoning Day raises the question of whether or not the same individuals even take part in creation each time (suggesting that the being currently known as Peryite will be the next Akatosh, while the current one will sit out the next cycle as a Daedra or Magna-Ge), and more generally several concepts in TES lore (mantling, enatiomorphs, mirror-brothers) make it worth wondering if gods can truly be said to have selfhood outside of their mythic roles.

Second, as much as what you're suggesting can be said to have a truth value, I think it's wrong. Shor son of Shor very much gives me the impression that every cycle, the Ald role maintains the same goals, orientations, statuses, et cetera and the same goes for the Shor role. The whole composition is all about how repetitive and nigh-on identical the kalpic cycles are.

Third, the creation myths and metaphysical accounts need to be viewed together, not separately, and when one does so, one must accept that the great spirits of this Kalpa (the Eight Divines, 16-or-so Daedric Princes, Magna-Ge, et cetera) pre-existed this state of creation in non-mortal form. The Cyrods, Altmer, Khajiit, Raga, et cetera all explicitly agree on this.


First off, and this isn't just an issue with you, but Lorkhan really seems to be misrepresented as "the missing god". If anything, he's the most present of all the gods. Pelenial was him, Wulfhearth was him, Wulf (in MW) was him, Talos is purported to be him, people have poked at his organs, he powered two giant stompy robots (though neither was turned on while plugged into him), the player character may or may not have been him twice, he has either two or three celestial bodies (Masser, Secunda, possibly Nirn), et cetera. Compare that with poor old Zenithar. Where are all the zenitharines, to make Lorkhan appear missing in comparison?

Other than that... yeah, Lorkhan's the rebel, not the king. We're agreed on that one.


Right, so, first off, you're giving waaaaaay to much credit to Lorkhan. For one thing, the formation of the mundus was not a genuine creation in the divine sense of the word. Lorkhan merely inspired the transformation or transmutation of the world Auri-El allowed to spring into being. Either every single soul (most likely), or merely the souls of the elves, Aedra, Trinimac, Daedra and Magna-Ge, sprang into existence independantly, but only after Auri-El cleared the way for them. He's the one who's responsible for individual identity, and the one who allows you to exist for more than one instant. Lorkhan basically just placed a lot of limits on people, introduced new forms of adversity, and either introduced or modified death.

Then we come to the issue of Talos, where, again, I'm just not convinced of the traditional view.

Well, as English is not my mother tongue it is really possible that I may make mistakes and cause misunderstanding during our comminication. If it happens it is really not your fault I think.

Back to our discussion:

I will not discuss whether On Boethiah's Summoning Day is telling truth or not, but the whole conception it suggests is very interesting, and I like it very much. And together with Shor son of Shor it heads to one question: what is Akatosh/Ald? That is to say, if Periyte will become the dragon king of the next kalpa, is his name still Periyte? Or he had successfully become Akatosh/Ald? And also, when the kalpa turned as in the Shor son of Shor, were the other Aedra following Shor at the end of the story as they were at the biginning, or at that time the "Shor" they had followed had already become "Ald", as we saw Trinimac in their camp?

Or can we say, it is not regular that which part of the oversoul from the god head is Aka; as kalpa turns the winner is always Aka because he reflexes IS, and without IS there will be no foundation of any world. And the loser always goes Padomaic and becomes Lork. The same if we count the Daedra in, whoever takes the crown will become the true Aka, and in the next kalpa that will be the one with the name of Peryite in the current kalpa.

And if it is in this case, in Shor son of Shor Ald will always be Ald. And when Shor win the war and ripped Ald's heart out, he will become the Ald of the next kalpa (if we don;t count the Daedra in), while the original Ald will lose the heart and becomes Shor/Lork/whatever Padomaic enantimorph in the next kanpa. Yet still the one on the throne is Ald, that will never change. Ald=King, that is the equation. And whatever Lork used to be, he can never sit on the throne unless he is no longer Lork.


And, on the Lorkhan's Missing, I'd say it is not the same case as Old Zenithar. That is because, Aka and Lork are not totally independent to each other. They are different, yes, but they share the same "body", or let's say, the oversoul. The conflict of King/Rebel is not only the conflict of who ruling the Mundus, but also the conflict who ruling the oversoul. It is just like the different personas in the same person fight each other to control the body. So, as Aka has already becoming the ruling King, Lork must go missing because he has lost his control to the oversoul, perhaps exactly in the form of a heart that got thrown into Mundus to fortify it. Who rules the world controls the heart, and that one is not Lork. Because of that he must act as the Rebel to regain his control, an instinct origined in the conflict of Anu-Padomay.


I still think Lorkhan the prime motive force that leads to the Creation of Mundus, as he is Padomaic, while Aka is Anuic which gives Stasis. I agree on the Psijic's conception that change is the greatest force, and without the change from Padomay/Sithis/Lorkhan we will have nothing happened in the Stasis Sea of Anu. Aka provide the sources, of course, but he cannot do anything without Lork's first move. And who move first will credit the consequence. And the Creation is named after Lork.


I don't know if I have made myself clean and understandable. Yet I look forward if any mistakes can be picked out and discussed

If Talos Mantled Lorkhan, then he is an aspect of him. If the end result is the same, who cares how the [NUMINIT] we got there?

If he mantled Lorkhan then he effectively became Lorkhan. "Walk like them until they walk like you." When you mantle someone, you become indistinguishable from that someone.

Martin mantled Akatosh, and the two became indistinguishable as seen in his battle against Dagon. The CoC (arguably) mantled Sheogorath, and the two became indistinguishable as seen in Skyrim. If Talos mantled Lorkhan, then similarly the two must be indistinguishable... but so far there's no evidence of that. Talos seems rather different form what we know of Lorkhan.

Talos is different from Lorkhan who already got his heart ripped out, or any other aspects who acts like the Rebel.

Talos mantled Lorkhan who created the world, with Aka and Magnus supporting him, aka Lorkhan who had not totally lose his heart. That is still Lorkhan because he is a padomaic-linked identity.

Perhaps that's why we call him Lorkhan 2.0, not the old 1.0 like Lorkhan or Shor or Shezarr?

Except Lorkhan-as-we-know-him had his heart ripped out. You can't mantle someone and become indistinguishable from them if you're demonstratively different from them.

If anything, I'd say the Underking mantled Lorkhan. He helped build Tiber's Empire, but was betrayed and had his heart (soul) ripped out, which was used to power the Numidium (something that was originally intended to use the Heart of Lorkhan). Additionally, Underking = King of under(world), something Lorkhan/Shor is known for.

But Lorkhan-before-the-creation-got-finished still have his heart. Or should we identify this Et'Ada as pure padomaic-reflection of Aka who created the world? And when this identity lose his heart, he becomes the Lorkhan-who-is-the-Rebel.

As far as we know, Lorkhan-who-is-the-Rebel keeps his name.

But we cannot say Talos mantled the oversoul, as the oversoul is in a balanced state of Anu-Padomay, and Creation is difinitely a Padomaic action. Creation can only be triggered by the Padomaic part of the oversoul, and this part is by far called Lorkhan.

So the question is, what if you mantle someone during a particular period of time? Should you change if that person had already changed, or you keep the origin identity of that person of that period of time?

I'd say mantling presumes that the two simply stop being separate entities. You can't mantle someone at a particular point in time other than the "present", and at that point you're forever linked. Is there any known case of it happening differently?

Or how the different aspects come out? Because they mantled the same Aedra at different times or in different spaces, they show differences.

And Talos is just one of these aspects of Lorkhan. He's not mantling the current Lorkhan or Shor or Shezarr at the time he's mantling, but is mantling Lorkhan at far past. How is it possible? I don't know. But it happened. Or perhaps we should see to that dragonbreak that make Talos a true God?

At least now, we cannot tell the difference between Talos and that Lorkhan-of-creation.

AFAIK, the different Aedric interpretations are not due to mantling. It's simply the same concept/being viewed different ways.

Is there any aspect of Lorkhan that didn't lose his heart and go missing?

How can you mantle Lorkhan in the "far past" if time didn't stabilize until after creation? Even then, time was still a bit wonky until the 1st Era.

I still maintain that you can't mantle someone without taking the whole shebang. You can't mantle Lorkhan unless you've also been betrayed while trying to create something big, lost your heart, and gone missing, and these are traits shared more by the Underking than Talos. Tiber Septim would be closer to Aka, being the one who helped betray the other, used the Heart (soul), and provided stabilization afterward.

No, and these are all Lorkhan 1.0. I fail to see why anyone call Talos a Lorkhan 2.0 if he doesn't have some great upgrades differing him from the former ones.


The underking is definitely a Lorkhan 1.0, and Tiber Septim is who trying all his life mantling or acting as Akatosh. Together they formed the collection of souls who is acting Padomaicly, loving the Mundus and presenting how things were like at the time of the Creation. By acting Padomaicly and full of Love to the Mundus this collection of souls represents the original Lorkhan, and this collection of souls is Talos. And by this Talos is Lorkhan 2.0.

I don't know if "walking like the original one until the original one walks like you while the new formed are watching you" can be considered mantling. If not, then what is this?

And one more question: can you only mantle aspects because what you can see is the aspects of Et'Ada, or you can also mantle the origin Et'Ada to its core?

And, whether or not Lorkhan got his heart ripped out or not, the oversoul Aka-Lork always has its heart. The whole heart ripped thing is just a metaphor transfer of the ruling from Lork to Aka, and the heart is always within the oversoul's presence. What if Lorkhan we talked about in "Lorkhan 2.0" is actually the "Lorkhan in the oversoul", that is, the Padomaic part of the oversoul? As the oversoul never changed this "Lorkhan in the oversoul" also never changed, and is mantlable.

All "Lorkhan 1.0"s are all aspects. We skip these aspects and directly go to the oversoul's core, and pull out its Padomaic part with the name of Lorkhan, and it upgrades to "Lorkhan2.0".

I'm not sure about the whole "Lorkhan 2.0" thing, but being that "Lorkhan 2.0" is not like Lorkhan, Talos can't have mantled Lorkhan that way. Since "Lorkhan 2.0" never existed before, it would be something new.

I'd probably say Talos = Enantiomorph 2.0. Tiber/Arctus (Talos) is a sub-gradient enantiomorph of the earlier Akatosh/Lorkhan enantiomorph. Talos is neither Lorkhan or Akatosh, but represents a similar thing to what they represent.

But an Enantimorph is neither Anuic nor Padomaic. It is both because it contains both Aka and Lork. And Talos is Padomaic because Creation is Padomaic based.

Talos is Padomay's Soul within the Enantimorph, not that Lorkhan in Meri Myth who is only an aspect and can exist without an Enantimorph. That is to say, you cannot have Talos without having both an aspect of Aka and an aspect of Lork. With the support of the enantimorph containing both aspects there appears the Padomaic figure from the whole enantimorph, rooted in the aspect of Lork but cannot exist without bounding the aspect of Aka. And this figure is Talos.


(I think we have mingled the original Lork=Padomay's Soul and his Aldmeri aspect too long. Can't we have something to call that serpent like Aka=dragon?)