FegelTemplar

How so? I honestly don't see how they relate. I thought the races of the Akavir continent were supposed to represent Asian culture?

At least this one admits his nordicism whole heartedly and doesn't write three paragraphs working ways around it. Maybe the reason you find it more interesting is exactly because of what I've been saying from the very beginning: because it's been vastly glorified and embelished in Skyrim, it's been made 100x more epic than reality, whereas Roman/Greek mythology was watered down, made 100x more boring than it originally was. It's funny you say "it's so far out" when you then claim you live in Scandinavia, also. Also, Japanese/Hindu/Chinese and even Egyptian mythologies are way more far out than Nordic, so by your logic shouldn't they also be more interesting? And yet, where's the TES: Rising Sun happening? We can be glad Romans and Persians were at the very least included in TES because they didn't even care to introduce a playable race that would be reminiscing of Asia.

You write "and yet" as if you're somehow refuting my argument. I put the Nords ever so slightly higher on the fantasy scale than Imperials because Imperials are more "civilized." The live lives that are more familiar to the majority of players, both to their real lives and through the melange of generic fantasy settings that they consume. Their racial traits tend to be the least fantastical. If the level of alien-ness of a race determines which flavor of racial supremacy Bethesda supports, it's safe to conclude that they are in fact supporters of lizard overlords since the Argonians are by far the most fantastical of the races, followed distantly by Khajiit who are themselves a hundred times more fantastical than their nearest competitors the Orcs. Anyway it's all subjective. It doesn't mean anything about Bethesda's actual intentions. That's just my interpretation. You're conflating different meanings of "normal human." Nords are the most linearly descended from the ancient races of man, with the least Elven influences. The are the most human by canon. Imperials are (again, in my opinion) the most "familiar" race to most players of the game. They are the most "meta" human, if you will. This has jack all to do with which is superior and even less to do with esoteric theories of ethnic purity. And we go all the way back to the original point: that Bethesda choses to depict Imperials this way. It's like you say, they are depicted as the least fantastical through their racial traits and their society. Imagine if Bethesda had focused on the less civilised side of Romans, if they would've made of them gladiators and introduced references to some heroes like Hercules and mythical creatures like centaurs and phoenixes and gryphons and what not. If they'd have made them more fantasy worthy. Then you wouldn't go around claiming Romans are boring and Vikings are epic fantasy, or if you really insisted to you'd have it more evenely balanced. See this wouldn't even be a problem if it didn't have an impact on people, but it does (again, see the reviewer I linked). It gives prestige to Nordic countries. If we were to have a poll here on this website, asking "would you rather team up with a nordic player or a mediterranean player in a MMO", the majority will vote the nordic player, because they come off these games like Skyrim with the idea that Nordic people are the superior, coolest people in the world, and everyone else is boring and lame. I've seen the poll on other game websites already, it's always the same thing. 20 million people or more played Skyrim; the game does have an impact on gamers. You may think that I have no motivation for starting this thread other than being bored. But that's not the case. I can't go around saying what country I'm from with the same pride some Norwegian can come here and say "I'm from Norway" and immediately get himself more respect simply based on his nationality. If you're Nordic, you have way higher chances of being accepted in good MMO guilds than if you're from Southern Europe, regardless of skill and regardless of what kind of person you truly are. I want to change that. I want to denounce nordicism and these unfair advantages that are circulating since around 2011. I'd like our side to be represented in a fair way.

Just to clarify, yes it's this whole "you say this," "you are doing that," "you are using said words", "but you don't want to listen," "you portray yourself this way" Pretty much all this personal talk, which does not in any way adress the topic at hand, and is instead aimed at trying to start a flame war or make a personal statement about someone else, this is what I refer to as semantics. It doesn't bring anything new, let's both admit we both know you're just trying to be an asshole and get over it. Now that we got that out of the way, please remove yourself from this conversation if you're not interested in discussing. You believe that whatever you say to me is useless because I'm not listening, so I don't see why you're posting at all to begin with, unless your purpose is, of course, to look for confrontation.

That's not the point; the Dragonborn wouldn't be able to defeat Miraak without it. So the Dragonborn can only be powerful if he came by knowledge in an original fashion? If so, the idea of Word Walls should also be an example of the Dragonborn not actually being powerful: that's not him, he's just copying, in essence. Your standpoint is that the Dragonborn needs to stand on his own two feet 100%, he cannot stand on the shoulders of those that came before. That describes an Ultimate Deity, not a Hero, wouldn't you agree? And in Skyrim, we are not playing the role of an Ultimate Deity. It's also a classic element of character development when a protagonist discovers lost knowledge, and in part, that plays directly to the concept of 'The Hero's Journey'. The Word Walls is just a mechanism to set the protagonist out in search for knowledge; either set on by the Greybeards, discovered on accident, or found on his own behalf, to become more powerful. Most likely the first and the latter, and the Dragonborn still has to go through great lengths to gain it─which is undeniably part of being a Hero. Of course not. A Hero is someone with great lines, wondrous speeches; an individual who overcomes obstacles, struggles, and learns from the mistakes of his/her predecessors to achieve goals thought impossible for mortals. Not someone who gets power, albeit plenty, handed on a silver platter to achieve a certain goal. I didn't say the Dragonborn is an Ultimate Deity, nor did I imply that. The Dragonborn is a Hero, no argument there. Though I didn't know we were discussing my standpoint on the definition of a Hero. ...so how can you stand by the premise of "the Dragonborn could not defeat Miirak" without something? That standpoint illustrates a deficiency in the terms of "power" because the Dragonborn had aid. But at the same time, without the aid of people and creatures and even Things teaching the Dragonborn Shouts...the Dragonborn cannot acheive his or her goals. I'm not going into "your" description of Hero. I am going into THE description of Hero, by the way. Only an Ultimate Deity creates from nothing. The Dragonborn cannot create from nothing, but your outlook seems to be that he should. Because his description of hero is "opinion" and your description of hero is "fact". Sure, do you really expect anyone to take your word for the one and only truth? Still don't agree with either of the hero definitions. I'd say a hero is someone who puts his life on the line for a cause or for other people and who serves as a role model. The Dragonborn isn't necessarily a Hero since you can make whatever choice you want to. You can be an asshole to everyone in game and you can also be the archetypical paladin. Regardless on whether he's a Hero or not, that doesn't matter, it's just a title. Could the Dragonborn win a battle with a Daedra? Given the achievements of Talos and some other people in TES Lore, I'd say that not only the Dragonborn, but anyone with enough talent, luck and the right tools is capable of attaining godhood and defeating other gods, it just takes the right events to happen at the right time.

I already made a point about semantics. It's even more true when it's clear you're looking for confrontation, shrugging off the topic at hand and making some poor comparison to a fart. Will ignore any further off-topic comments by you from here on.

This is all the explanation you need, I think. The storylines have been getting steadily more sophisticated, and players have been demanding steadily more complex options. Personally I have always viewed the Imperials as the option for people who like to play as a normal human shoved into a world of magic and sorcery. This is the race for people who roll their eyes at the self-conscious weirdness of Dark Elves. Then at the opposite end of the spectrum you have Argonians for people who want to play as a totally fantastic creature. Hang around a DnD and you'll see long rants about how players should never be allowed to play as anything more alien than an elf because it makes the setting less interesting, and equally passionate rants about how some DM is a jerk for not letting them play their neko/lizard vampire-dragonlich. Anyways, it makes a lot more sense than the half baked conspiracy that the Elder Scrolls is a decades-long plot to expose people to a fringe belief system of a fringe belief system, shrouded in so many layers of fantasy narrative that it is only recognizable to those with just the right balance of paranoia and faith. Also this whole thread is hilarious. And yet you're placing Nordic people on a higher level of fantasy than Mediterranean people, when you say that Imperials are the "normal human" option. Ask yourself, how did you get to the point of believing that Imperials are less fantasy-like than Nords? Why are Imperials "normal humans" and Nords are more than that? According to some people here it's even supposed to be another way, with Nords being more simple humans and Imperials being closer to the magic world of elves due to their place on the map.

In-game is highly scaled and broken down into very simplistic executions for mechanical purposes. Do you really think Skyrim encompasses 30 square kilometers and has only a few hundred inhabitants? The games do not equate to the world. You are also misunderstanding exactly what the Et'ada are. They are individuals, yes, bit they are also concepts. They are self actualized thoughts and ideas, given consciousness through introspection. They are LIVING and THINKING ideas, fully capable of rational thought but at the same time constrained by their fundimental nature. Just because the Aka-Tusk is Time doesn't mean he is not conscious and rational. He is fully capable of recognising his own existence and his place in the greater cosmos, along with his relationships with other concept-beings. He can make decisions, pass judgement and interact with the intimate cosmos which is the Aubris, but he will always be constrained by his nature. Part of the fundimental component of the Elder Scrolls universe is the very real, very tangible existence of gods and divine beings. They ACT like people, because people are just parts of gods. I really do honk your dwelling too much on the 'thought' part of all this... Thoughts and ideas in TES are far more tangible, far more real than in the real world. The Et'ada represent ideas and concepts and thoughts that arise out of the cosmic interplay of Is and Is Not. We are not talking about the literal idea that pops into your head, but rather the fundimental existence of that idea. Molag Bal IS Oppression and Rape, and so long as those concepts exist within the Aubris, the fabric of creation sustains and renews Molag Bal. You can stab, dismember or bite off his dick as much as you want, the persistence of the idea he represents ensures he will always come back. Trying to kill an Et'ada is like trying to kill gravity. Of gravity were a fat jackass always trying to hold you down. It can't be done unless you eradicate all sources of gravity. You can break them into smaller concepts, or sub-gradients though, and that's how you inevitably get Mortals. Oh ok let's bring in the technological argument now. You know, whether or not Bethesda has enough resources isn't going to change anything to the debate on whether Alduin is a form of Akatosh or not, or on whether Lorkhan is a moon or not, or whether the Princes are actually their Oblivion territory or not. Alduin isn't Akatosh, by the way, since he himself claims to be "the first born of Akatosh", a separate being. You can doubt his word but I really can't see why he would need to lie about that. They incarnate concepts, sure, but they're still incarnate. They exist as independent entities. They're not constrained, see my argument about Clavicus, Dagon and the others doing whatever they please (or failing to do so) in spite of them being supposed to be a certain way. The next part of your argument... well, again, you're just reciting whatever you interpreted from the books as fact, but it's still just your opinion. First you say Akatosh is the fabric of time, then you say he's Auriel / Akatosh / Alduin, then you say he's also a conscious living entity... see, there's no consistency to what you're saying. If what you say is what the developers say (is it, though?) then it still holds no consistency, it seems the gods are whatever is convenient for them to be at any time. Above all, you're not providing any evidence to back up your claims. I do appreciate there being a poetic side to TES and some high fantasy. But you have to weigh out what seems more believable. In one hand you have an account from some unreliable book, which is in contradiction with another account from another book, saying that Molag Bal is an idea, a concept. On the other hand, you actually get to see Molag Bal in ESO, you get his weapon in Skyrim and previous games, you get vampires who were literaly raped by him, so on and so forth. What are you going to believe - the hypothesis from a book, or the factual experience, thousands of testimonies and physical evidence of who Molag Bal is? The Et'Ada have been presented as humanoids since the first TES. Alduin himself says he's been created by Akatosh, he's not a fragment of him. Vyrthur has a personal vendetta with Auriel/Akatosh. Miraak has one with Hermaeus Mora. It's clear as day that these Et'Ada aren't just "concept's, they're present entities like very powerful mages/spirits. This is in the game, not in some NPC's book. Comparing an Et'Ada to gravity, and without any evidence, lol ok this is getting ridiculous, I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

Yet in game is it really what you see? If each Et'Ada (by Et'Ada I'm referring to the gods as a whole) is merely an idea and an idea alone, it's contradictory to who they are. It's clear in game that, at least for the Daedric princes, they're beings/people with their own consciousness, their own thoughts and opinions, their ambitions and even physical shapes. They can express fear, anger, happiness, pride, and other feelings. Take Dagon, Boethiah and Molag. If your idea was true and they were only the incarnation of ideas, then one would only represent destruction, and the other only represent betrayal. But that's not what we see. All three of them are capable of destruction. All three of them are capable of betrayal (think of Dagon when he asks you to betray the museum guy, and notice that his artifact is best used as a deceptive weapon), all three of them are capable of domination. It's clear that when they want to, they can set aside their original "purpose" and to whatever they want to, they have a mind of their own. Clavicus Vile rewards you at the end of his quest without you getting scammed, and yet he's supposed to always betray the deals he makes. You can chose to betray Azura during her quest, and yet she's supposed to know in advance what's going to happen; she says she knows you're her champion and all when you start the quest. Heck Nocturnal gets her cloak stolen in one of the in game stories, when she's the goddess of thieves, the irony is thick. It doesn't stop them from being the heralds of ideas, much like a paladin is the herald of heroism or a thief the incarnation of greed. But asserting that the Daedra are merely a pure thought and nothing more is ludicrous. If a developer actually asserts that, then there's some serious plot holes in TES, because it's possible to present an argument against it.

Again, source? It certainly doesn't follow the same rules as our Universe, because there is magicka, but where does a developper ever state that your previous examples are what really went down in TES, and not just the opinion of some NPC observer? You do realize that most in-game sources are contradictory, right? And that the clues you find in game also contradict those sources many times?

But what source do you have to make all these claims? So far what we actually see in the game is contradictory to most of what you are saying. Instead of Akatosh being time itself, we see him as a spirit of its own which can be summoned with the right spell. Akatosh, whose other name is Auriel among others, even has a bow, proving that at some point he had a humanoid shape and used it in combat. He is said to have fought Lorkhan alongside with Trinimac and shot his heart with the bow. We get to see Lorkhan's heart in game, and we also get to see the bow. Heck we get to see most other legendary artifacts they supposedly used at some point. I would go as far as saying that the Elder Scrolls could have been their scrolls, the tools they used in battle, much like regular mages use regular scrolls. We get to see a bit of their culture in game, what they left behind. Instead of dragons being fragments of time and shards of Aka-tush like you say, we see them being living beings of their own, made of flesh and bones, they have the ability to eat, breathe, speak and use magicka, and enough intelligence to have rational debates. They don't seem to be on extreme levels of fantasy. The evidence we see and experience in game seems to be far more compelling to me than the epic tales you see in the books you can find, many of which contradict each other, some which make claims that Lorkhan is the two moons and that Akatosh is the fabric of time. I don't see what use a planet would have of an organic heart, or even less, a bow. Now I know you can say, "but they just take human/beast forms to fight each other on Nirn and in reality they're the fabric of the Universe" etc. But we have no direct evidence of that, do we? That's just a story you're making up in order to accomodate all the different accounts of all different, unreliable and contradicting books you find in game. To what extent is Lorkhan still Lorkhan if his predecessors no longer have the same memories, no longer have the same opinions or experience? It's no longer the same mind, thus no longer the same person. His power was recycled into smaller beings, but that doesn't mean that they are him or that he is them. Your argument that Daedra cannot be killed is "Talos and Vivec couldn't do it", well, there's argument over whether Talos really is that powerful or not, so it doesn't really hold up. Also, the idea that the Et'Ada and other spirits in general are "ideas" and not people, is highly hypothetical, as in, very unlikely. You're making an unfalsifiable hypothesis there, it would be the same as claiming that we, in the real world, are actually living in the Matrix. There is absolutely no way to know such a thing, therefore it's best to take the 99.9% chance that this is simply reality. Same concept applies to TES unless Bethesda openly confirms that your idea is true. So far what they do is they have different NPCs express different views and opinions, and leave us some clues in game about what the truth is, and it's up to us to figure out how it really went down.

How can you assert that they cannot be killed? What if it's just that there's lack of someone strong enough to kill them? They certainly aren't omnipotent, nobody in TES Universe is. Some people claim Akatosh is time istelf, but he did appear as a dragon/bird hybrid to fight Dagon. If he truly was time, he could have just removed him from existence. From what we see in game, it's far more likely that Akatosh is only someone who is capable of bending time to some extent, not time itself. Much like the Dragonborn is capable of using the Slow TIme shout, Akatosh would be able to do that to a greater extent, being far more powerful. Perhaps on the same level as the Dragon Elder Scroll. Lorkhan died, and Trinimac was completely transformed into a Daedra, so it's really a long shot to say they can't be killed or harmed. It's probably just that they're evenely matched, they're all existing in a stalemate and there's nobody who is strong enough or willing to kill them. Perhaps if you gave Sithis a good enough reason to kill Molag Bal, he'd get it done. In this discussion I see many people using the argument "this book in game says this, therefore it's true", but there's really a lot of contradictions within the books, a lot of contradictions between what they say and what we see in game, and especially a LOT of exageration.

Depends who's story you're willing to accept as true. There's always various ideas about who is who in TES. For some, Talos is a Nord. For some, he's a Breton. For some, the Dragonborn is a Nord, for others he's another race. For some, the Daedra and Aedra are physical beings who actually fought each other a long time ago on Tamriel, forming the islands and mountains. For others, the Et'Ada are just the planets, or spirits, or whatever else. In my opinion, all of these feats like the Dragonborn being able to shatter the sky with his voice or kill people with a whisper are all typical exagerations from medieval people, and all these stories that Daedra are omnipotent spirits and are one with Oblivion is yet more bullshit from medieval scholars who didn't know what they were talking about and therefore made up what they believed to be the truth. It makes for a better story. What we do know, what we actually see in game, is that Daedra and Aedra are just mages on steroids. Dagon and Akatosh appeared on Oblivion, Molag Bal appeared in ESO, Akatosh appeared in one of the older games... and they always had a physical shape and could be fought back to some extent. We also know from one of the Dwemer stories found in Skyrim that the Daedra aren't omniscient either: the Dwemer managed to trick Azura with some magic box. What we do know about the Dragonborn is that s/he can slay dragons, but s/he can also be killed by things as small as mudcrabs or skeevers. This is what we have seen in game, this is the most direct evidence we have of what power each being truly holds. Any backstory is unreliable in comparison to this. I would say that given enough time, the Dragonborn still wouldn't be on the same level as the Aedra and Daedra. Miraak had plenty of time and he still got himself killed by Hermaeus Mora. If Miraak had fought Mora while he was still at full power, would he have won? We don't know, because Mora only shows up to finish off people. It's complicated, but I think all of these beings are FAR less powerful that lore would have us believe. Lore is mostly legend, and legend is always an exageration of reality.

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/15927/? This mod says it's not compatible with mods that change the helmet's stats... Anyone know if this means it will be incompatible with Perkus Maximus? It seems strange to me that a mod which is only meant to change the looks of the helmets would also affect its stats.

Unlikely. I think some series-context is necessary to understand why things were done the way they were... In Morrowind, the Imperials were depicted with heavy Greco-Roman influences. These alsmot entirely disappeared long with basically every reference of what Cyrodiil was like, when Oblivion came out. It was ana generic, boring, character-free mess, and people flipped. The. Eff. Out. The Bethesda forums, still somewhat young at the time, exploded, and several developers were outright threatened. When going into Skyrim, they knew they couldn't make the same mistake they had before, despite the commercial success of Oblivion. So they pretty much designed the province, to a T, around its description in the PGE. some of the more... Peculiar aspects, like the naked Glacier-dwelling tribes and the flying whales got left out, but they tried much harder to encapsulate as much of Nordic culture and identity as they could. Kind of dropped the ball on religion in order to focus on Talos, but whatever... At he same time, they tried to make up for the Oblivion debacle by giving the Cyrods some of their personality back. But this game was never about the Cyrods, it was about the Nords, so. The Nords had to take center stage. Remains to be seen with the next game. Fact remains that Skyrim convinced many people here that Nordic culture is good and epic and Mediterranean culture is bland and boring. See some of the opinions posted here, see the link to the review I posted in the first post. I'll give you that Nords too were bland and boring in previous games.