» Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:22 pm
Burning questions to topics the games aren't helping answer:
What is the main difference between Men creation myths and Mer creation myths, and why do the two always fight over them?
What exactly (other than long lives, culture, etc) makes the Mer, as they say, superior to Men?
Why do Mer hate Lorkhan?
Should Lorkhan be hated at all?
Are the Thalmor justified for their actions?
Could Men and Mer ever get along peacefully?
Are Men deserving of being eradicated from creation?
» Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:23 pm
1. The difference are the person and intentions of the Lunar god.
2. It's generally more focused on high-class living as well as much more magical influence. Mer are more inclined to magic.
3. Because they have stronger connections to their spiritual ancestors and view Lorkhan's test as not worth while.
4. I don't think so. He should be looked at for what he is.. an extremely pragmatic being. Personally, aetherial spirit life doesn't seem that great to me.
5. No.
6. Yes. The Empire was a shadow of this I believe. It was man-centric (hence the diamond) but also the combination of Lorkhan and Auriel in Akatosh. The Loveletter from the 5th Era reads to me like in order for this thing to truly work, the Mer need to find love.
7. No.
» Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:33 am
The races of men and mer all have different creation myths and it's probably better to look at them individually...the Nords don't have a creation myth, the Imperial account is far different from the Yokudan account, etc. The classical divide is over whether Lorkhan was a hero or a villain in conceiving of Nirn, but this isn't a clean man/mer split since the Dunmer revere Lorkhan and the Redguards hold a negative view.
So essentially the dichotomy in creation myths is over whether Nirn was a mistake or not. The "Mannish" viewpoint would hold that Nirn is an improvement on the dawn, whereas the "Merish" view would hold that the state of the Aurbis before creation was better than the state of things on Nirn, and advocates either suffering with dignity, or preserving, or reclaiming that divinity depending on who you talk to.
Mer believe they are closer to the ideal original divinity of the et'ada (as seen in their practice of eugenics and obsession with ancestry) whereas men are agents of chaos and subgradience who thus propagate the values they are opposed to on Nirn. They dislike Lorkhan because they believe he was responsible for ending their divine state in the dawn, through deceit.
Should Lorkhan be hated? Er, I don't think it's helpful to ask who is right or wrong in this situation. the Forum is going to be very pro-lorkhan, but that is because we tend to emphasize Vivec's teachings. Were the same attention given to Anuic philosophy, perhaps the tide of popular opinion would sway.
The Thalmor are extremists who don't represent the usual Merrish viewpoint.
Not only do I believe that the Man/Mer conflict can be resolved - I believe that a resolution is essential to the building mythic drama playing out on Nirn. There is a quote from the Skeleton Man interview that states:
Though the mantella ultimately failed, I personally think that the mythscape of the aurbis is straining to finally resolve the ancient Anu/Padomay battle in the symbolic guise of Men and Elves. Perhaps at this new mortal subgradient, peace is finally possible. I should like to think so at least.
Remember that the Thalmor don't represent a traditional or majority Merrish viewpoint. Anyway, to them it is not about what men "deserve", but rather that they wish to undo the mistake of Nirn, and must needs eradicate Lorkhan and his followers to do so. They don't see mortal existence as worthwhile, so why would they feel a moral compulsion to preserve it?
» Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:22 pm
Keep in mind that the Thalmor dont speak for the entirety of Mer nor their views on men, the wording in your OP insinutes you might think this fallacy is truth.
-5 and 7 depend on who you ask...
Not the entire forum... only the silly ones, I dont like that self obsessed jerk.
