:P

Actually if you want to graph it correctly (cue Lisa Simpson and Bill Nye magnitude geekiness) you need a sine wave and a negative sine wave on the same axes so you get a nice double helix pattern. Enantiomorph is the DNA of Nirn anyhow.

I know ur not being an ass but what im now getting at is that there is no real answer for the question that was asked..i.e there is no 'true' underking

Why is everyone obsessed with a title that doesn't mean anything? There was Zurin Arctus and there was Wulfharth. Call them whatever the hell you want.

Know your starting to understand. People put to much power into names, and not enough into the idea behind the title.

The stuff in the game has more backing than out-of-game formulated theoires.


Countless others are and have been in conflict with one another, but they're not the same as each other. Everybody can't be the avatar of Lorkhan, and even if they were, it doesn't make everyone the same.

Magic works by association, so...

... every experience (that is, everything) born from that primal wail would cascade unto the echo-need of hologram, each slice the same except for scale ...

...and we are talking about the man who mantled Lorkhan by having the avatar of act as his standing until the two could no longer be seen as different. When this man, or these men, come into conflict with another then by virtue of their struggle he too is uplifted into the mythical because with their struggle they echo the struggle between Anu and Padomay, which formed the Aurbis.

Their strugle ended as Talos said to the Arctus; "Let us join as one to fortify this throne, this land, these people, each one glorious under heaven!", which shows the power love.

CP, with all due respect, we've already had the "canon" argument before, and you can't seriously expect to win when you're here in the Lore Forum -- aka Kirkbride territory.

AP, notice that the topic is Talos. It's not the old copyright fetish canon debate. When Crimson Paladin says out-of-game, he means in-brain, because if it isn't explicitly stated on the page of an in-game book (it is the year 3E 431, orcs are green) it's possibly wrong, which means probably wrong, which merits a cleansing crusade of greasy sophistry.

I never said that it has no merit. However, it only seems logical for in-game information to take precedence over out-of-game information given by someone who isn't even with Bethesda at the moment.

And please try to keep a civil tone.

OK, can we not have this bickering -- in this thread at least? I was actually paying attention to the answering of the original question.

*gestures for the smart people to resume rambling*

Technically...there is, though as paws has pointed out, it's just a title.

The Underking/Talos/Tiber Septim is just an avatar of Lorkhan/Akatosh.

edit: Oh yeah, and if you're still clinging to your idea, please tell me where else Vehk could have killed Tiber Septim? (please don't use the stale argument that "Vivec is lying...")

OR that he did it with the Armistice. This is almost ridiculously poetic, even for Vivec.

Hows about Diplomatic? Try thinking of some of this as a treaty document: The articles take precedence, but if something is expressed in either the preamble or post-script in addition to the content of the articles then that is taken to be as binding as the Articles themselves because preamble and post-script are seen to be indicative of the thinking of the participants at the time of the Treaty's creation. And note that when signed the preamble and post-script were part of the Treaty Document so the participants were free to object, and accepted it.

I believe you can say therefore that there are aspects of the Lore from outside the game that you do not like, or you can crit them (usefully) according to how well they work, you can even interpret them or re-interpret them ... you can suggest that they have a different weight than in-game stuff because of their very nature ... but you still have to accept that they are indicative of the views of the Dev/s. Heh - if you think they *insert your favorite expletive here* or have misinterpreted what they actually created in-game, then that is a valid opinion ... but remember to give the Devils their due

One last detail - the extensive and complex nature of this game has to be taken into account and that includes the process of assembly and editing by a multitude of people, so sometimes what was intended gets unintentionally left out or improperly ammended by people (bless them) who have different specialities and do not understand the nature or impact of 'tiny' or 'necessary' changes they introduce in the course of their work ... so to the modern way.

There are no significant conflicts between in-game and out-of-game lore. There are things added and things explained. The latter is in most cases built directly off the former. Answering a question that is unanswered in-game is not a conflict, nor is it a retcon. Most conflicts take place between old lore and new lore, and as a retcon should not be used lightly, most of them are official.

The idea that because one side of this central mystery is better documented by in-game sources and thus is "more true" is ridiculous.

Tone can be uncivil without breaking forum rules.

And Blood of the Divines and Lifting the Vale aren't loreless throwaway quests...


It's still detrimental to conversation though.

:lmao: - 'to polite conversation'



:blink: - is there actually any part of the Lore that is not contradicted by another part on one level or another?