I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Akatosh did not tear out Lorkhan's heart in that story. Trinimac did. A small detail, perhaps, but quite an important one for the purposes of this thread.

Reconsidering Trinimac's transformation from 'divine champion' to 'traitor/outcast' in light of that fact could prove interesting. The architect of that transformation was supposedly Boethiah, but what does Boethiah represent?

To Mortazo: Ah, so I guess it's safe to say that I'm wrong in that "flipping alter-ego" crap, lol; I can accept that Akatosh is Lorkhan's only "other". I got it straight now. Thanks.

Oh no, I realize that. But like you said, it's probably not very likely, when logically considered. Of course, there will probably always be a part of my mind that thinks that it COULD be an "anti-Lorkhan version of Lorkhan" doing it, but I now find it more unlikely.

Ok, the thing is there already is. Every god INCLUDING Shezarr has one. Its already been determined that his other is Akatosh.

I know that man, and I've said that I already know that. I don't want to try to explain it again because it will just confuse people more.

in the OP I was actually asking if there was a third "other" in the Lorkhan/Akatosh Enantiomorph.

This is why Shezarr is "the dead god" but Akatosh is still very much around. This is why the original Sheoograth and Jyggalag can't exist at the same time at the same place. This is why Trinimac was no where to be found when Malcath came on the scene and why Gortwag is convinced he can bring Trinimac back.

The third party is the witness. In the Akatosh/Shezarr relationship, its hard to say. It could be Nirn or Trinimac or men or mer...

Nirn can't be the witness, though, because she already fills the role of the female principle (land/woman/freedom/divinity).

See here's the danger in this kind of careless assigning, every opposing pair in history becomes the Enantiomorph which isn't the case or it would be a meaningless sobriquet. While one can certainly derive power from this kind of similarity it isn't much the further you get away from the truest form of the conflict which, given the fragile nature of the temporality of the universe, might not yet have 'happened'.

There are three main components (usually assembled as four actors) to what might be described as an Enantiomorphic Event:

• The 'Split Male' Principle
  
• The 'Female' Principle
  
• The Witnessing Principle

The first component usually appears as two actors, generally male, that come into conflict revolving around the second component, generally female, with the third component bearing witness to the end result. The first two principles generally participate in the story of the http://til.gamingsource.net/obbooks/anuad_paraphrased.shtml (which is the story of creation[all of it]), the actors typifying Anu, Padhome, and Nir. The Witness generally observes the betrayal and subsequent mythic marriage/[censored] of the Female and goes insane/is blinded/flees/dies (Morihaus does not encounter this fate, to my knowledge, as Pelinal vowed not to sleep with Alessia the tale, however, progresses with Pelinal's body being cut into eight pieces and his head being left at White-Gold which is very much in the same vein as the Anuad with the creation of Nirn/Mundus).

Note: One might look in the Anuad and only see the three chief characters and wonder 'where is the witness to this 'first' Event is?' I would suggest that it is the Totality, the megalithic entity that is the Universe, and it went insane by its witnessing.

Arctus, Talos, [unknown], witness [unknown]

Its likely Arctus was the witness and Ysmir was Talos's other.

That female principal thing is bs. It doesn't really fit in the majority of cases.

The female principle is whatever is being fought over: the reason for the conflict. She's an essential part of the mythic structure.

What cases do you think there are where she doesn't 'fit'? :huh:

Were it not for the tiny detail that Zurin got his heart ripped out. A classic, as the myths show. It's archetypal. Just that Talos didn't know that the ripped out heart was also his until it was too late.

The female principle is whatever is being fought over: the reason for the conflict. She's an essential part of the mythic structure.

What cases do you think there are where she doesn't 'fit'? :huh:

There is no female principal in the Talos example

Talos and Ysmir were anrfgy at eachother. Ysmir broke into the palace intending to kill Talos. Talos ordered Arctus to capture Ysmir's (divine) soul in the mantella. Ysmir ripped a hole in Arctus's chest to stop him. When the dust cleared, Arctus found his soul trapped in the gem instead of Ysmir's. Ysmir found himself stuck in Arctus's body and Talos either assuemd he had Ysmir's soul in the gem and that Arctus had betrayed him, or he knew the truth and didn't care.

There is no female principal in the Talos example, and none in the Malcath example (just to name two). these conflicts are simply the result of mutual animosity between two others.

Anu/Padomay, NIRN, witness [unknown, possibly Sithis]
Akatosh/Lorkhan, NIRN, mortals
Pelinal/Pelinal, Alessia, Morihaus
Triminac/Malacath, Beothiah, Chimer or Triminac/Malacath, Chimer, Orsimer
Arctus/Ysmir, (I'm not sure if Tiber is witness or female principal. He could be both.)

Not everything that has a dual nature, a female principle and a witnessis the Enantiomorph, but every Enantiomorph has those principles. The Trinimac incidence is in my opinion not an example of the Enantiomorph. Neither is the Tribunal, which also shows similarities (Alandro Sul as the witness), but who are not an Enantiomorph. The story has power and the wise may draw from it by imitating it (mythopoeia), but that doesn't mean everything that is dual in nature has to be the Enantiomorph.