After a little side convo in another thread (http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1371389-will-we-be-able-to-meet-important-people-we-know-lived-at-that-time/#entry23452958) and the pure definition of lore as well as some examples between Morrowind and Skyrim that are in those games, what if lore in this game goes against what we know? I find it intriguing to see what happens if this is the case. What happens if the lore we once knew from games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim and such are all wrong, or at least some are because of the actions that we have here and now in this game. Would anyone feel cheated because of it?

I for one am hoping to see, how we as the player within the story, may see a different outcome that may have been suggested within the lore that we thought was true, from previous games.

Does anyone see that as a problem if some of the things we thought was true are no longer as we know it? i have been seeing a lot of people bring up lore quite a bit, and to me, they seem they could very well be disappointed that they could be seeing "what really happened" as opposed to what the lore they found in a previous ES game is actually false. Seeing posts saying things like "Playing a heavy armor templar is NOT possible anymore (what happened to lore?)" makes me wonder to myself, what if the lore isn't accurate?

The "lore" is just that... "lore"... not "fact". It's a collection of stories, all told by (fictional) fallible narrators with their own point of view.

It's not possible to "break" lore, from that perspective. All you get is an accumulation of alternative narratives.

Just like, yknow, history

So can't vote in your poll It presupposes that lore is more rigid than it in fact is. We don't "know" anything from previous TES games. We just have an anthology of tales.

you do realize that this right here is the earliest form of tamrielic lore right? we arent breaking anything we are creating the lore as we speak all that lore u speak of thats been in books etc is AFTER the era we are currently in

I agree with you on that, what I was getting at is I have been seeing posts with replies about things like this is how the lore is. As if the lore is somehow correct. I maybe just assuming that all those that I have read with posts like that isn't as big in population in the community here than I previously thought.

Can't argue with that, as that's what I was basically getting at. I was just under the assumption that the community here had a big lore is facts attitude after reading a lot of posts basing claims towards lores.

I was mainly curious to see how many would be disappointed that what they thought was correct (going against what lore means) isn't correct. Also curious to see why they take these as facts and how it would dampen the story line for them.

Guess it's just all bad speculation on my part which led to curiosity is all.

I think it's silly to assume the people of tamriel perfectly understand their world. When you look at their level of progress and technology, it's safe to assume their folklore is just myths and legends with at best kernels of truth. My headcanon largely disreguards their stories and fantastical explanations, just considers them their crude primitive attempts to understand their world and by no means close to the factual natural history of nirn.

I don't even consider the divines or daedric princes to be real, just the absurd beliefs of a primitive superstitious population.

All of the races on tamriel, and all living things on tamriel, are to me just species that evolved.

They say that history is written by the victors. In that case it isn't all necessarily true. By putting the game firmly in the annals if history, it gives them carte blanche to play with the law as they see fit - and any discrepancies with existing law covering this period that then be attributed to misinterpretation or outright lies.

It was hard at first to place a vote, per the question in relation to the additional text within the answers. Just me being old...

If you ask me if the lore should remain accurate, then the only answer is, yes. There is not a lot known about this part of the timeline and it has room to expand. We have what... a good 500 years or so to play with? Plus there are other continents on Nirn that we know nothing about. Then there is even potential beyond Nirn. Hypothetical, of course. I guess one can look at the Daedric Realms as beyond Nirn.

This was just a good spot to drop ESO, as they have room to create something in. This allows them to do their thing while Bethesda can continue to move forward with the timeline and do what they do. In the end of it all, I don't see them doing much to try and contradict anything. In fact they entrusted to develop storylines that coincide and support everything else that we know about the series.

Granted, there's been hardships in the past and you get junk like a Dragon Break to justify a complete and utter breakdown in the writing department. Alas, I like to think that we have survived that and leave it to what it is. (vague yet contradicting) The current fanbase is very passionate and overly vocal about any newly conflicting data. This all but demands the developers to get it right.

There should be a "Couldn't care less about the Lore" option.

I think as long as they don't make any massive changes to the games lore we will be fine.

For instance we know we won't see dragons in this era as they have all but vanished from the world. But minor changes to other things would be fine, after all lore isn't written in store its a perspective on events and as long as the outcome of said events is pretty much the same were fine. Were hardly going to have the Argonians and Dunmer putting the same spin on slavery but the general outcome is the same.

The lore has already changed many times. With five different games and dozens of different writers working on The Elder Scrolls series, there are things that are going to get mixed up. It really is inevitable .

It look like to me that 'lore' has a different meaning to most, some see it as fact that has to be right in every inch, with that way of thinking I wonder how they explain that the lore first was written. I mean someone has to write it

And the ones who say everything change for every game, well they have to add stuff for a new game and it does not play during the same age in the timeline and it is not like the major lore is changing, example dagon came to tamriel during teso(eso is online version) and in tess they say dagons attack never happend.

That armour looked like that there and why would there be a green stone on the imperial shield, coldharbour does not look like what I have read from the lore(like it can only look like you want it or all the lore is wrong)

I can kill a dragon priest, daedroth and flame atronach the before I reach lvl 10 lore is so wrong! Mhmmm so every game to date is just wrong.

Oh the ones that read something in a book in 1 game and another in the next game and say the lore is totally screwed those people exist too.

To me nothing major has changed in any game more like ot evolved and have become more explained in detail or from another point of view etcetera.

What I would like most from people saying 'lore is broken' are for them to explain in what way, that is what I would have done if I would come up with an assumption like that.

Pretty much this. The lore in Elder Scrolls is essentially written not by some infallible god-like beings (devs), but by the people (men, mer, and beast races) that actually reside in the world. They all have their own faults, agendas, and biases. The get their information from other fallible people in their own past. They even sometimes outright lie.

It is imposible to disregard the daedra/Aedra HERETIC! we should burn you alive!

No, but seriously it is pretty hard since they speak to you as well as confer blessings.

And Aedra and Daedra can't lie? Partcularly the Daedra...