Wait two timelines can exist at the same time? Great. Another headache haha.

I've always understood Vivec being a mortal Chimer that used Kagrenac's tools to become a demi-god.

Now that makes sense. Wonder if all lore can be explained that easily.

Once he became a god, he was a god since forever because he then existed outside of time. He also had CHIM going on so that helped.

That he is. But, at the same time, everything written in Vivecs lessons is true. Gods in TES are eternal. once they exist, they always have existed. So Vehk the mortal became Twice-Vehk, Vehk-Vehk, V-Vehk, Vivec. A mortal and a god at the same time.

The Jills never put a timeline together perfectly. The more I read that paragraph, the more I actually like it as an explanation, tbh. Phrastus and Lady Cinnabar are both living in the aftermath of an event that hasn't happened yet. Hjalti hasn't even been born yet, to say nothing of the events of the Heresy occurring - no one has any understanding of what Talos is going to be, but they're living in a world where their written records disagree with their observed reality. Some might remember better than others (The Lady Cinnabar, in this case), while the remainder attempt to rationalize and rewrite history out of their own confusion.

I don't actually see this contradicting with the Talos Explanation at all. Now, if it had lacked the note about an opposing scholarly opinion, then it might be more problematic. As it is, I think it's actually a rather elegant way of phrasing it while still leaving it ambiguous. Those who are interested will find their way to the true answer hiding behind the official one, now as always.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1421658-the-teso-lore-questions-and-concerns-thread-2/page__view__findpost__p__21794302

I like this explanation, much nicer than TESO's one.

Nice!

Though weren't you talking about the whole game there?

When you sent me to the TESO official page where that paragraph turned up, I was kind of happy to see a "Was this answer helpful to you?" reply area. Only kind of, though, because in the end I decided it would be immature to send them a nasty message about what they must have been smoking to come up with that explanation--unless they really are thinking as deeply about this topic as the folks on this thread, like Solitha Nev (whose post both explains what I mean and is also on this page of the thread, so I don't have to go back to the first one to search for a name). Plus they want my email address. I don't want my low opinions about other people's property (and I will at least admit that it's their property to do with as they please, as much as that admission kills me) to affect my real-life identity.

And I agree with Nord that this will likely become "canon," or at least as canon as anything TES-related ever is. The thing about canonicity in TES is that we, the players and lore-folks, seem to make a lot of it up as we go along, using the games and dev writings as a framework but not necessarily as a be-all end-all. Much of this is caused by the fact that various games in the series have competing ideas of history and metaphysics, and could never actually exist in the same world as one another. Thus, we come into situations where folks will start arguing about a certain topic and find that they'll never come to an agreement because they're using two separate ideas of "canon" or "truth." As of right now, it seems that most lore folks don't intend to consider TESO 'real' (pending the release of the game where we'll find out if we've been blasting Schick's name out of the water for good reason or not), but what lore-folks consider real isn't necessarily what general players will consider real, nor is it necessarily (or at all likely) what Zenimax and/or Bethesda will consider real. The fact of the matter is that TESO has "The Elder Scrolls" written in the name--thus, regardless of who the developer is, it will be considered part of the series in the same way that we consider Redguard and Battlespire part of the series.

What does this mean for TES VI? No idea. I suppose it really depends on whether or not Beth is asked/told to advertise for TESO by adding references to the Planemeld in the books and writings in-game. I can hope that that will never happen, but if it does, I'm prepared to simply ignore those books the same way that I ignore the things I don't like about Skyrim's plot that I don't think jive well with Oblivion's metaphysics. That said, just like those things that I don't like about Skyrim, I will also have to accept that not everyone will view those additions like I will. This is part and parcel of how the community has built TES lore over the years, as games are released, information changes, and our preferences force us to decide whether or not the new information is better or worse than the old.

Anyone else follow up on that little 'Was This Answer Helpful' feedback tab on the bottom of the explanation? I just typed the ESO guys there a nicely worded and politely phrased doosy. Pretty much ripping that little tidbit to shreds with evidence.

I recommend some others do the same. I even gave them an out and told them the solution...RETROACTIVE CHIM! Though I was honestly polite. i don't think being a dike will get us anywhere except down a darker hole.

I used a dummy Email account.

Nothing, it was all political propaganda to enhance the reputation aging over-lord distributed to a war weary Red Legion who couldn't discern the difference between lowland jungle and a dense hardwood forest.

There's a lot I hate about TES:O's lore, but Cyrodiil not being a jungle isn't one of them. I don't love the transcription error, but if you look at it as retroactive CHIM, then, yeah, it makes sense.

But Talos rewriting an Elder Scroll is awesome.

I thought this idea sounded familiar.

I'm wondering if they responded to you. They've responded to me using that feature in the past. If they did, would you care to share?

I got no response. Figures.

Just wondering but how does an Elder Scroll have an error in it? Is that even possible? I thought the Elder Scrolls could never, ever be wrong and that what is stated on an elder scroll can change depending if the scroll wants too.

The Pocket Guide had an error, or so say Zenimax. Not the Scroll. The only errors with the Scrolls are in how people read them.

The pocket guides do have an error, we aren't looking at the big picture! what if the scholar was blind and secluded and everything told to em was by other scholars pulling a prank on him?

I still say it's a Dragon Break. Someone was trying to erase flowers from those fruity elven gods, and ended up breaking forests everywhere.

Dragon breaks, everywhere. How is Akatosh not fully broken?

He's a fractal puzzle with a few dozen pieces missing.

I like to think that his true face is the Dragon Curve.

If you read the OP fully I'm sure you can pick up on the cheekiness.

They may have just been speaking out of universe, that is the transcription error is talking about Bethesda literally. It isn't hard to imagine that some of the lore was a bit disorganized in those days so the decision about Cyrodiil's climate wasn't unanimous. Of course we'd have to ask Bethesda to be sure (cue Lady N to go ask MK who originally thought of the original jungle thing, and whether it is possible some lore writers didn't know about it and therefore dumped it later).

Is there really a problem? The MK passage that mentioned it was put in TES V.

And on a side note, rainforest doesn't necessarily equate to tropical jungle.