There are people on this forum that are writing that the lore of SKyrim is iconsistent with the lore of Skyrim. There is lots of new stuff, but this doesn't mean it's inconsistent with what was mentioned earlier.

Look around, it mostly has to deal with dragon, so look for the dragon related threads. However, I personally find the idea of other races learning Thu'um to be bogus. Hell, I'm against the idea that Thu'um is even being learned by the PC, as Thu'um was described in sources before as being extraordinarily powerful, with the most powerful users (Greybeards) having to be gagged, or else villages would just explode.

Indeed, it's [censored]. I'd rather the other races have slightly different campaigns, or resort to non-inclusion of other races, in character creation. Race doesn't make a character unique, anyway. They're just wish fulfillment.

Every game has rewritten the Lore to some extent, its to be expected really. The thing to keep in mind is that most of the lore is relative to whoever wrote/said it, which means bias, conjecture, and just plain lying/fabrications are possible for nearly every book or savant you encounter. There is nothing illogical about a book author getting information wrong or just making stuff up. So all lore has to be considered in flux. The only thing we can hope for is that they don't completely invalidate everything we knew and that the changes are at least somewhat explainable/believable.

Also, we don't have nearly enough info to say anything at this point. Not until we actually play through the game can we say if what they've done doesn't make sense.

It's said that it was used by Nords, but it wasn't said that other races couldn't learn it themselves. And I'm sure that for somebody annointed by the gods it isn't such a huge problem . And I'm sure it would take years to achieve the power that the Greybears had . We also know the Akaviri could use a similar power (possibly the same, just a different name), so why nat other races?

In what source do we know the Akaviri know Thu'um, or are you making stuff up?

Children of the Sky, it's not sure if it's the same. It's called Kiai.

I think he is referring to the Dragons... which I don't think its been confirmed yet that they are from Akavir either.

EDIT: Nevermind

Hrmm...you got me there, you got me there ya son of a gun, Pacal_II

For me one of the worst things are that thu'um is called dragon shouts and that there will be no mysticism, it always seemed essential to the series, and was in it longer than conjuration (which wasn't in Daggerfall).

That hardly justifies a retcon like Thu'um. We know enough to say any Dragonborn of a desired race can use it. So we will discuss this and voice our disfavor, if we so choose. That's forum.

Thu'um had always been a feat restricted to Nords steeped in the Atmoran tradition. The "shoddy scholarship" handwave to good world building is tasteless. Bias has nothing to do with a source's validity. Bias is not corruption. Instead, the reason for inconsistencies is a deviation, in the goal of the development team. Their "vision" of Tamriel as-it-should-be has simply changed, and that is to be expected. Not fluctuating sources. I'm not going to discount what I read because of bias, or because it's possible this is going to be invalidated in six years, by new developer wankery.

Instead, I'll adapt and be content in the "new lore," because the new stuff takes precedence in debates. Even it svcks.

Well, mysticism was more of a junk school than anything, really. Plus, the schools are artificial constructs created by the Mages Guild.

Read what I wrote earlier about thu'um and other races, also lots of stuff has changed, even in morrowind and Oblivion quite a bit. Read the PGE 1, according to it the Akaviri nobility were human, the Bosmer could change their form on a daily basis and Cyrodiil was supposed to be covered by jungle.

Edit: The mysticism school was closely related to the Psijic order of Artaeum. It was one of the six official schools of magic.

Mysticism can kiss my ass.

Kiai. Interesting. I'd overlooked that, good find. The key stone are the dragons. We know Thu'um is dragon-speak, as is likely kiai, which originates from Dragon Land.

I'm aware of the PGE. Read my post, I didn't say changes don't happen, did I? I think I said the opposite, several times, and that I'm content with changes, even if they svck.

The Bosmer may or may not change on a whim, that's never clarified.

All I know is when a bosmer changes, it's because of the Wild Hunt, which is irreversible, and even the bosmer hate using it.

First, I never said it shouldn't be discussed, just said it should be understood that retcons are going to happen, and you seem to agree with me on that. Second, I was just saying that bias and "shoddy scholarship" are examples of how there can be more than one explanation for many things in lore, and they are as well as many other reasons. How can bias/misunderstanding not explain the issue with Thu'um anyways? If the Nords prided themselves on being the only ones able to use it, or there was never a reported case of someone else using it, it could very well be assumed to be a Nordic only trait when in fact its just never been done before. You can use something like that or leave it if you want to explain why some things are changed, that is a personal choice of course but that doesn't mean its wrong.

Of course I know that the reason that things are being changed is because the development team has decided to change them. I believe that is the point I was making with my post.

As Pacal_II has pointed out, there is the possibility that others outside of the Nords have used Thu'um, or something like it.

Bias doesn't imply misunderstanding. Bias is all we have, unless we're talking word-of-god docs, like Arcturian Heresy.

No, I wasn't aware of Kiai, and my response was delayed, because I'm a slow-ass thinker and typist.



Thu'um remains the Atmoran tradition of dragon-speak. However, we know a dragonborn of any race can develop the ability to speak. I'm perfectly content in that, because I see there's precedence for this in other sources, and so Thu'um/Dragon-speak isn't a ret con.

Wow, are people complaining that TES V ruined the lore before its even out? :rolleyes:

Is there any source that says only Nords can use Thu'um? I don't recall at the moment. Actually, we know of a Breton who could use Thu'um.

Tiber was a nord!

All hail Hjalti!

From what I've seen, not many people are complaining that Skyrim has ruined the lore. Most people simply trying to find answers to these new, seemingly inconsistent pieces of lore/information, which seems perfectly reasonable.

I thought that they could in fact revert. Otherwise would a Wild Hunt never stop once it started? These things are supposed to be able to go up against armies.

There's a monster in "The Trial Of Vivec" who is a Bosmer from a previous Wild Hunt. Two scholars track it down and attempt to kill it. I assume it's been a monster for many years. Devs participated in that thread and nobody corrected the person who made this claim.

Bias/misunderstanding = Bias OR Misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that it is misunderstanding, I was saying that information can be bias and/or it could be a misunderstanding. It does however imply misinformation. In any case, now you are simply attacking bits of my post that aren't even essential to what I was saying. It was ASSUMED that Thu'um was Nordic only. Even without the Kiai bit, a retcon of that assumption would still make complete sense, because it was an assumption, which is what I was trying to point out.

Lore is a lot more than just books, for example we have first-hand experience and direct sources from developers or others with the authority to say what is and isn't. Example, the Infernal City would be a direct source.

Also, just pointing this out, but when you first posted in here you didn't seem content at all.

The lore is a body of fiction. This means it's a collection of devices created to create the illusion of the world and sometimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_Swim-Two-Birds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote http://www.imperial-library.info/content/morrowind-thirty-six-lessons-vivec-sermon-twenty-six.

Now this posses a problem when bringing up an argument that claims sources are biased or that their authors simply misunderstood. It assumes the position of some one in the world, however as a person in the world you would notice the world was rather insane. Every time a great hero shows up, history becomes indeterminable. Not just who the hero was and what he did, but everything in that time period.

Now most of the time everybody is supposed to pretend that these problems don't exist. It's part the story telling, the storyteller comes up with a compelling narrative that moves you along and you don't look behind the curtain.

However we can't really discuss lore in that way. It's certainly fun to do it that way, figure the world out and then extend it a little by patching it up. Rather we should look at the lore as lore, a body of knowledge about the world and it is the world that is being changed with each game, not the lore. Rather each world has it's own body of knowledge that differs from the others.

So what we can discuss is the change itself. Why was it made? Does it improve the the story? Does it improve the experience of the game? But we don't need to argue over how to excuse its existence, it's nonsense, unless the explanation itself is actually interesting.

---

Anyway going to read that GI article now and see what it's based on.



With nothing to eat it turns onto itself.