It still wasn't presented as undeniable, as I pointed out before the Remans wore it before the Septims.

Yes, but in the context of the Main Quest the Remans are never explained outside of a brief mention at Sancre Tor -- thus, they could easily be misconstrued as part of the same big family line.

It's poor storytelling, not intentionally unreliable narrators.

Remans aside, most people didn't have any reason to believe that someone other than the Septims could wear the Amulet.

Since nowhere is the truth actually stated, a claim that is introduced devoid of any reason for doubt is indeed presented as undeniable.

Bethesda wanted their fans to get behind their convenient version of history so they could get on with the main quest with some sort of motivation. Discerning the real story was left for the enjoyment of us continuity-obsessed arthouse freaks.

But the truth, or rather a refutation of the statement that only a Septim can wear the Amulet, was out there. Twice, if you include the Dagon Shrine quest. Mankar Camoran was wearing it.

Without explanation, whatever Kurt Kuhlmann says. If you took a poll, the vast majority would call it a mistake. So did Bethesda present an undeniable truth or just bork the storytelling? Choice is yours.

In-game statements can never truly be undeniable, they're in-universe and therefore could be wrong. And he didn't simply have the Amulet, he was very clearly wearing it. I doubt they'd actually overlook that, considering it was a crucial part of the main quest.

My response to that would just be my last two posts again.

Honestly, I'm perfectly willing to admit that saying only someone of Septim blood can wear the amulet, and then having Mankar do so was a poor move on the developers part (the big mistakes are the loading screen and the prompt you get when you try to put the amulet on). It would have been okay for some in-game characters to say that, if such a belief had developed (which one could expect to happen), but it would be good if either Mankar couldn't wear the amulet, or other people (most pertinently, the player) could, either to verify or falsify the belief.

To make the main quest work, all they would have had to say (as far as I can tell), is only a certain type of person (Septim bloodline, or whatever) was able to use the amulet. Would have been a fairly easy fix. So, yeah, shame on them for that one. :shrug:

The only in-lore explanation I can see for saying only a Septim can wear it and having Mankar wear it is if Mankar had Septim blood.

Who exactly is special enough to wear it should also have been given more focus. Seems that blood for some reason became more important then the divine rights.



Well, what ever he says, he can't make something positive out of it. He could argue that lore changed but then he'd be stuck on the books and Mankars intentional abbility to wear the Amulet which would make the plot rather schizophrenic.
If he argues that everything the game told us about the Amulet of King doesn't to be true and that by extension Martin was not the only person capable of wearing the Amulet of Kings, then the reason of the main quests existence vanishes.

It will be bad story telling either way.

I wonder sometimes what makes the player think they know more on the game than the people who created it. It's as if an on-looker tells the artist what he was trying to paint. It's ignorant. The artist painted something entirely different than what the person said. It's the same thing with a reader and an author. The author of a book may put in or write a book that some see as a satire or some other thing, when the author simply wanted to write what they wanted. It doesn't have to make sense to you yet, especially when the TES creators and writers haven't completed the TES story and lore.

It is true you may find some holes, but sometimes you just make it bigger than what it really is. We can't expect an explanation for every stone left unturned or every blade of grass left uncut.

It is true that only a Septim can wear the amulet. You prove that in the game by your inability to wear it. Perhaps the Septim line is a branch of the Reman line. After all, weren't there cousins and etc who ruled? What about a female (I do not know, asking the lore-ists)? If there was a female, then she would most likely take the male's last name. And in that, it could have been turned into Septim.

It is true M.C. wears the amulet without a proper explanation. Perhaps there's more to it than we understand. Maybe we won't know till the end of the TES legacy. After all, there's years till it comes to an end. A writer doesn't give you everything at once, they keep you guessing.

I first played Morrowind when it came out. Even after finishing the game I didn't understand a lot (Since I didn't know the lore before). And then Oblivion came. And, in this vast legacy, I found most, if not all, the pieces to fit without an understanding of the complete lore. That doesn't mean I didn't second-guess things, I did. But in that, it made sense to me, because my knowledge was virgin and untainted by the past lore, which would have just clouded my judgment. Even to this day, with an incredibly large understanding and knowledge of the lore, I still feel the same way. I don't see many holes. Of course, I'm expecting some posts or thoughts of "Idiot..." because I say this. But plank before sawdust, my friend. Perhaps it is I who sees more. Or perhaps I see what I want to. We will never know till this comes to an end.

But finally, I ask that you, instead of making holes or finding them, try to piece it together instead. Try to make it fit, instead of tearing it down. Maybe you'll enlighten yourself to something new. Go in with an open-mind, not a closed-one.

I agree with the spirit of your post.

The amulet seems to be a legitimate issue, though. It would have been fine if only in-world sources (i.e., characters and books) said it, because they could just be wrong. What makes it problematic is that you (the player) couldn't wear it, and when you tried you got a prompt that says only a Septim can wear it (or something like that, I forget exactly what it says), and there's a loading screen that suggests this as well. But neither of these (prompt or loading screen) seems properly in-world, and the fact that the player can't wear it would suggest that there is at least some requirement.

Unless someone wants to argue that loading screens and prompts are in-world phenomena (which I doubt), the only way to overcome Mankar wearing the amulet without retconning is to say Mankar has Septim blood.

That said, I concur with the spirit of trying to fit things together rather than presuming the holes are real and without answer.

Taynio, I?m glad someone wrote an optimistic post on the subject.

Even though I don?t exactly agree with trying to apologize the devs for all of Oblivion?s shortcomings (wich I wont get in to), I think it?s refreshing to read from the point of view of a "casual" gamer, if you will. I mean someone who is not that much of a Lore buff. By no means am I trying to imply that I?m lore buff, I?m years away from that, but it does increase the experience.

But still... they might as well released Oblivion as an FPS, whereas Morrowind is every Roleplay gamer?s orgism

It's been pieced together. It fits, and the final conclusion is that the MQ is a giant plot hole to a vacuum of space we can just call oblivion.

The game gives no inkling nor has any use for (barring KotN) the lore that grounds it in the series, but grounds it it does. Still doesn't answer the mysterious lack of grandchildren on the part of four bored and middle-aged aristocrats, however.

True.

On a different note, does anyone know why it was called the Amulet of Kings? Calling it the Septim Insurance Policy isn't as catchy, but why did bethesda settle on the current name?

I don't know why Bethesda chose it, but Cyrodiil has been ruled by a collection of kings as much as three distinct, contiguous dynasties. The Amulet gives legitimacy to a ruler, enabling him to become an Emperor or gain some divine mandate. Whether that means a Colovian Duke who is a distant relation, the Ayleid chieftains who cut the gem, or Mankar Camoran.

I'd say it's just a crude translation of Chim-el Adabal, but I think the english name came first.

I see no need to go with the boring real-life explanation, such explanations undermine lore even more than in-game inconsistencies, real or imagined.

What real life explanation? With enough weaseling and interpretation, the MQ follows logically. Elements of the story (which, by the way, are appraised from a real-life perspective) are hollow and unbelievable enough to break immersion anyway. That Baurus is such a trusting fellow, isn't he?

The RL explanation that it was a mistake made by the devs.

I think the whole MQ was a mistake, clearly, but I honestly don't know what you're talking about now.

What I mean is that explaining things in-game by saying that it was the Dev's faults shouldn't be used regarding lore when there are other possible in-game explanations. It's like breaking the fourth wall.

Yeah...

Have fun justifying the Oblivion cell phone game and its contributions to canon lore. Much less Arena.


Games are a stand-alone creation. Lore is not. Creating bridges where none exist doesn't constitute a lore explanation or a continuity bandage because it distorts the truth, especially when there are two versions of it. It's convenient lying and the most worthless kind of fanon. So there,

It's better than saying that everything in Oblivion was a developer mistake to explain things. It almost looks like a reluctance to acknowledge Oblivion lore at all.

Who said that?

To explain all the mistakes? Kinda seems the right thing to do actually.