I thought what Mankar Camoran said about Shor being a Daedra was nonsense. Later I thought about it. What he said made a lot of sense. If he is dead why does the heart remain? He never died. So that whole crap about the Aedra being tricked is a big lie. They're not gods at all. So where the hell is Shor? Why does'nt he show his true self? Is there any lore that give us clues?

Look up into the sky. See the moons? Those are his decaying body. His soul finds a new vessel once in a while, like Pelinal.

No worries friend, it is nonsense. Camoran was decieved by the master of deception, if you noticed, even his 'paradise' was a lie.

So he is dead ?

The body may be dead, but the heart and soul of Shor lives on.

Never trust an elf! Seriously; they've got it in for mankind...

Souls are immortal

Also, Shor is only daedroth in the sense that mer use the Aldmeri definition of Daedra as to mean "Not our ancestor." This is the definition of "daedroth" I believe Mankar was using, not the idea most people have.

"The Principalities have sparkled as gems in the black reaches of Oblivion since the First Morning. Many are their names and the names of their masters:...and Dawn's Beauty, the Princedom of Lorkhan... misnamed 'Tamriel' by deluded mortals. Yes, you understand now. Tamriel is just one more Daedric realm of Oblivion, long since lost to its Prince when he was betrayed by those that served him. Lord Dagon cannot invade Tamriel, his birthright! He comes to liberate the Occupied Lands!

...But if a god can die, how does his heart survive?

He is daedroth! TAMRIEL AE DAEDROTH!"
http://www.imperial-library.info/content/paradise

I myself always believed he meant it in the vernacular sense, comparing him directly with the (other?) Lords of Misrule.

Daedra = "Not our ancestor."
Aedra = "Our Ancestor."

That is what "daedra" and "aedra" mean in the language of the mer.

When mer refer to something as daedroth, they're calling it "not our ancestor." For a mer to say that the god of manking, Shor, is also their ancestor, they committed a heresy so horrific, they may as well be a nord. Why else do the altmer hate the Chimer/dunmer? They dared to say that daedra = also our ancestor. This is why Lorkhan/Shor/Shezarr is called "daedra."

Also, Mankar is ultimately merrish in his beliefs. Instead of praying to Auriel/Akatosh/Alduin, he called upon Mehrunes Dagon as his liberator, as the mer and Mehrunes Dagon have a common goal, the utter annihilation of Mundus.

I agree with most of what you said, I was merely questioning your (or maybe my?) interpretation of the bolded part. The average Altmer probably thinks of Lorkhan as "daedra", in the literal word-meaning sense, but Mankar's speech gave me the distinct impression that he was speaking using a different set of definitions; that he meant "Daedroth", not in the traditional "He is not my ancestor" sense, but in the more slang-y sense, in that he was not an Aedra-as-defined-as-mortal-gods, but literal peer to the likes of Dagon and Sheogorath and Azura and scamps and seducers, ad infinitum.

Then again, all of a sudden I can't seem to remember the Altmeri religious system. I know they divide the spirits between Ancestors (/stronger, better) and Not Ancestors, but what, aside from perhaps some kind of as-told-by-myth battle lines, was used to judge between the two?

I might be completely misunderstanding something here too, of course.



More to the OP: Lorkhan/Shor seems to be a special case, (D)Aedroth or not. Creation is, almost literally, his baby, whether they like it or not. But, like others have said, he has shown himself in one way or another, quite a few times.

If Mankar was calling Lorkhan a Daedra in a literal sense, wouldn't that (in his mind) make the Eight Daedra (and all life of Mundus) lesser Daedra? Since they're not, I'd agree with Hellmouth's theory on Mankar's view on Daedra.

Sorry, a bit tired. Anywho, the altmer religious system is almost like The Nine, save for a few here and there differences.

It's not a matter of what's really-so when it comes to Mankar's speech. He actually does claim that Tamriel is just another realm of Oblivion, and that the 8 were slaves of Lorkhan.





(emphasis added)


Sorry to pretty much quote his entire speech, I just felt that it's what it'll take for me to show how I'm looking at it, in case anybody can show me where exactly I'm wrong in my interpretation (also note, I'm basing my current argument entirely on the speech, not the Commentaries, so you all may be looking at things through a more comprehensive lens).

Also in all fairness, there's enough evidence to support the Mankar's claims that I was happy that it went in. The idea really flips the idea of Tamriel on its head.

Imagine the Oblivion realm of Attribution's Share, for example, with eight powerful daedra (one of which is Boethiah) wielding divine power over their realm, and all their subjects bound to the whims of that power; now imagine it under an ur-theology and creation myth(s) as complicated as anything on Tamriel, where the myriad mortals of Nirn were, to the denizens of the Eight Divines of Attribution's Share, in fact, "daedra".

This realm would be surrounded by the Void, just like Tamriel, in turn surrounded by Aetherius, and who's to say that the big hole known as the Sun doesn't hit their shores, as well?

Lorkhan the Padomaic could be exactly what the Mankar says he is: the dead Lord of a lost daedric realm whose "gods" are powerful Liars.

I've always thought that Daedra only really makes sense in the Merrish context, what with the whole gods-as-ancestors bit.

And although I know most everyone thumbs there nose at anyone who dares to refer to Daedra as Demons, I feel that it's actually the proper Mannish anolog. They don't have ancestor-gods, just gods/divines. Well, what is the opposite of a god?

As such, Lorkhan is a Daedroth, but at the same time, a God (in his Shezarr and Shor aspects)

This.

What if Mankar Camoran speech was true, and MK wrote is as so, knowing that people would not accept the truth? It's kinda like how some people do not believe Akatosh is Alduin. It's deep man. It's deep.

Didn't MK later redact that statement, citing the influence of alcohol?

Ah crap. He side that?

No. Has he redacted the Sermons, too?

What evidence is it that you see to support his claim?

That was an MK quote, without any kind of visible citation.

Nirn floats in Oblivion like any other plane. Every creation myth portrays Lorkhan as the victim of a violent rebellion (although not necessarily against his authority). And wouldn't we mortals like to think that we are special?


All the actual quotes have been eaten by the forum, and twice as fast with this new software.

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/forum-archives-michael-kirkbride with as much precession as I can manage.

Really, one of the biggest wrenches in the whole "Tamriel ae Daedroth" paradigm is that fact that the other Daedra Lords seem so intent on snatching the souls of those within Mundus. Mankar does touch on why this might be, though... if the other Daedra view it the same as Mankar's vision of Dagon does, a lost Realm of Oblivion full of false gods and drifting souls, then it would be a lot like Purgatory in the last season of Supernatural (it's the only reference that came to mind, I apologize)... whoever could absorb the most of this Realm would be that much greater amongst the other Lords, though each would have hir own way of going about it, and none would very likely be acceptable/survivable to the mortals dwelling there.

The other thing that would help is some kind of record about whether or not the Daedra snatch "mortal" souls from each other's Realms on a regular basis. I know there was some massive view-shifting posts written about Kalpas and godly succession, but I haven't had a chance to really absorb it, so ignore me if I'm using Window's 98, and y'all just got Windows 7 (metaphorically speaking).