Ayleid physiology and King Dynar (spoilers inside for main quest)

Bruccius

psychotrip wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

Aeschere3 wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

Just because lorebreaks are common in TES doesn't mean everything is. Dismissing the entirety of the First Pocket Guide is arrogance and ignorance.

Thanks for your input! I will agree with psychotrip below in saying that calling them arrogant and ignorant (indirectly) is escalating the discussion more than it needs to, though.

I think that dismissing such a large work, all of which was written by one person, mind you, is incredibely disrespectful towards the developers of the franchise. And as someone who is dedicated to this franchise, I'm not tolerant of that. Who knows how many hours were put into writing the Pocket Guide? Only for someone to dismiss them entirely? Because of ''all of it'' (a very great exaggeration) being retconned?

Just saying ''it's not true unless shown in later lore'' is very shallow. Using that logic, we can assume everything we read ingame is not true unless we see it with our own eyes. TES is a lot more like real life in that regard, there are myths, there are falsehoods, there are possibilities, and there are tales. You cannot take everything at face value, but neither should you disregard it ''just because part of it has been proven wrong.''

Saying the entire Pocket Guide has been retconned is just false.

I'm not the one dismissing it. Bethesda and Zenimax have been doing so for over a decade. I say this as someone who loves the old lore, and someone whose current career wouldn't exist without it.

I'm just done clinging to this notion that this company has any interest in internal consistency or artistic integrity. The series has moved on from the days of Morrowind and the first pocket guide, and we jusr have to accept it or find a new series to obsess over.

Let's be honest: the worldbuilding has been slowly going downhill since Oblivion (ironically my first ES game), when Todd Howard watched Lord Of The Rings and decided that's what The Elder Scrolls is all about.

The people in charge of this series have no interest in following through with the amazing, creative ideas they came up with in the late 90s. Unless they have no other choice, they will always go for the most boring interpretation of Tamriel possible. And then we're stuck picking up the pieces of our shattered perception of a world we no longer recognize.

Bethesda / Zenimax will always retcon lore when its convenient for them to do so. The First Pocket Guide is a perfect case study for this. It's just tiring to see you guys put more thought into this world than the actual developers.

The way you guys try your best to fit everything together is brilliant but fruitless. The elder scrolls lore is not a puzzle box, nor a jigsaw puzzle. There's no treasure in the box, and no picture in the puzzle. At the end of the day its not meant to fit together. Those days are long gone, replaced with mediocrity and creative bankruptcy.

I say this not out of spite, but out of love for a community I've been a part of for the majority of my life. You people are wasted on this series.

In short, don't kill the messenger. I love the pocket guide. Zenimax and Bethesda do not.

/rant

Anyway to get back on topic, yeah ayleids probably just had bird armor, though it's not represented in Oblivion's elven armor. Just head-canon it the way you want.

Edit: I accidentally found this thread again while googling, not realizing it was this old. In my defense, I'm also tipsy.

Except that they really haven't been retconning anything of it. I'd like you to prove otherwise. It sounds like you're just complaining for the sake of complaining and nothing more.

What do you think a retcon is exactly? It's short for retro-active continuity. Something was meant to be one thing, and then it was changed or adjusted in some way. Whether or not the new explanation makes sense has nothing to do with it. It's still a retcon. Our inability to even acknowledge that is baffling to me. Just call a spade a spade.



From TV Tropes:

Retroactive Continuity.

Reframing past events to serve a current plot need. The ideal retcon clarifies a question alluded to without adding excessive new questions. In its most basic form, this is any plot point that was not intended from the beginning. The most preferred use is where it contradicts nothing, even though it was changed later on.

Take a step back and think about it:

-People from Cyrodiil describe it as a jungle in 3e 427

-We go there in 3e 433 and find no jungle

This is a retcon.

-A former writer tries to retroactively explain the retcon. This doesn't make it less of a retcon.

-The retcon is acknolwedged in the next game (Heimskr's speech). It's still a retcon, but at least it partially fixes the continuity.

-The retcon is retconned by ESO.

-The retcon is retroactively explained with a new theory.

Do you see a pattern here?

Bethesda / Zenimax create something unique and interesting and retcon it away, using the unreliable narrator as a shield from criticism, knowing fans and former writers will do their best to fix their mess for them. It's like the narrative equivalent of the unofficial patches.

But retcons aren't always a bad thing. If not for retcons, this series would still be the generic D&D knockoff it was in tbe early 90s. The problem is that this is a sloppy retcon.

Through all of this, People STILL called Cyrodiil a jungle in the third era. Regardless of the pocket guide, regardless of any timey whimey shenanigans or CHIM-related plot devices, no one has ever explained why everyone in Morrowind, even imperials from Cyrodiil, think it's a jungle.

Do you think these changes were made to deepen the world? Or were they made because of a shift in direction? Or for the sake of ease? Or for familiarity?

Honestly it doesn't matter. Either way, these are retcons by the very definition of the term. They were sloppily executed and required the fans and former writers to clean up Bethesda's mess. Then, once they accepted the fix, they break it again.

Look man, you can choose to believe there are no inconsistencies here, that this is all just the result of brilliant worldbuilders playing 3 dimensional chess, but you're burying your head in the sand. At the very least you should acknowledge when a retcon is a retcon.

We can have a valid argument about whether this shift in worldbuilding was for better or worse. Clearly I've taken a side on that issue, but I understand why people would disagree with me.

But if you can't even acknowledge a retcon is a retcon, then we can't have a good faith debate.

So you bring up Cyrodiil's jungle status, good job. The reason everyone in Morrowind says it's a jungle is because they were coded to quote the book ''Provinces of Tamriel'', as to why that book says Cyrodiil is jungle, well, that's inconsistent.

At best there are a handful of retcons, and those all have explanations. I recall you hating on ESO showing Summerset in just the way it was meant to be just because you disliked it.

psychotrip

Bruccius wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

Aeschere3 wrote: »

Bruccius wrote: »

Just because lorebreaks are common in TES doesn't mean everything is. Dismissing the entirety of the First Pocket Guide is arrogance and ignorance.

Thanks for your input! I will agree with psychotrip below in saying that calling them arrogant and ignorant (indirectly) is escalating the discussion more than it needs to, though.

I think that dismissing such a large work, all of which was written by one person, mind you, is incredibely disrespectful towards the developers of the franchise. And as someone who is dedicated to this franchise, I'm not tolerant of that. Who knows how many hours were put into writing the Pocket Guide? Only for someone to dismiss them entirely? Because of ''all of it'' (a very great exaggeration) being retconned?

Just saying ''it's not true unless shown in later lore'' is very shallow. Using that logic, we can assume everything we read ingame is not true unless we see it with our own eyes. TES is a lot more like real life in that regard, there are myths, there are falsehoods, there are possibilities, and there are tales. You cannot take everything at face value, but neither should you disregard it ''just because part of it has been proven wrong.''

Saying the entire Pocket Guide has been retconned is just false.

I'm not the one dismissing it. Bethesda and Zenimax have been doing so for over a decade. I say this as someone who loves the old lore, and someone whose current career wouldn't exist without it.

I'm just done clinging to this notion that this company has any interest in internal consistency or artistic integrity. The series has moved on from the days of Morrowind and the first pocket guide, and we jusr have to accept it or find a new series to obsess over.

Let's be honest: the worldbuilding has been slowly going downhill since Oblivion (ironically my first ES game), when Todd Howard watched Lord Of The Rings and decided that's what The Elder Scrolls is all about.

The people in charge of this series have no interest in following through with the amazing, creative ideas they came up with in the late 90s. Unless they have no other choice, they will always go for the most boring interpretation of Tamriel possible. And then we're stuck picking up the pieces of our shattered perception of a world we no longer recognize.

Bethesda / Zenimax will always retcon lore when its convenient for them to do so. The First Pocket Guide is a perfect case study for this. It's just tiring to see you guys put more thought into this world than the actual developers.

The way you guys try your best to fit everything together is brilliant but fruitless. The elder scrolls lore is not a puzzle box, nor a jigsaw puzzle. There's no treasure in the box, and no picture in the puzzle. At the end of the day its not meant to fit together. Those days are long gone, replaced with mediocrity and creative bankruptcy.

I say this not out of spite, but out of love for a community I've been a part of for the majority of my life. You people are wasted on this series.

In short, don't kill the messenger. I love the pocket guide. Zenimax and Bethesda do not.

/rant

Anyway to get back on topic, yeah ayleids probably just had bird armor, though it's not represented in Oblivion's elven armor. Just head-canon it the way you want.

Edit: I accidentally found this thread again while googling, not realizing it was this old. In my defense, I'm also tipsy.

Except that they really haven't been retconning anything of it. I'd like you to prove otherwise. It sounds like you're just complaining for the sake of complaining and nothing more.

What do you think a retcon is exactly? It's short for retro-active continuity. Something was meant to be one thing, and then it was changed or adjusted in some way. Whether or not the new explanation makes sense has nothing to do with it. It's still a retcon. Our inability to even acknowledge that is baffling to me. Just call a spade a spade.



From TV Tropes:

Retroactive Continuity.

Reframing past events to serve a current plot need. The ideal retcon clarifies a question alluded to without adding excessive new questions. In its most basic form, this is any plot point that was not intended from the beginning. The most preferred use is where it contradicts nothing, even though it was changed later on.

Take a step back and think about it:

-People from Cyrodiil describe it as a jungle in 3e 427

-We go there in 3e 433 and find no jungle

This is a retcon.

-A former writer tries to retroactively explain the retcon. This doesn't make it less of a retcon.

-The retcon is acknolwedged in the next game (Heimskr's speech). It's still a retcon, but at least it partially fixes the continuity.

-The retcon is retconned by ESO.

-The retcon is retroactively explained with a new theory.

Do you see a pattern here?

Bethesda / Zenimax create something unique and interesting and retcon it away, using the unreliable narrator as a shield from criticism, knowing fans and former writers will do their best to fix their mess for them. It's like the narrative equivalent of the unofficial patches.

But retcons aren't always a bad thing. If not for retcons, this series would still be the generic D&D knockoff it was in tbe early 90s. The problem is that this is a sloppy retcon.

Through all of this, People STILL called Cyrodiil a jungle in the third era. Regardless of the pocket guide, regardless of any timey whimey shenanigans or CHIM-related plot devices, no one has ever explained why everyone in Morrowind, even imperials from Cyrodiil, think it's a jungle.

Do you think these changes were made to deepen the world? Or were they made because of a shift in direction? Or for the sake of ease? Or for familiarity?

Honestly it doesn't matter. Either way, these are retcons by the very definition of the term. They were sloppily executed and required the fans and former writers to clean up Bethesda's mess. Then, once they accepted the fix, they break it again.

Look man, you can choose to believe there are no inconsistencies here, that this is all just the result of brilliant worldbuilders playing 3 dimensional chess, but you're burying your head in the sand. At the very least you should acknowledge when a retcon is a retcon.

We can have a valid argument about whether this shift in worldbuilding was for better or worse. Clearly I've taken a side on that issue, but I understand why people would disagree with me.

But if you can't even acknowledge a retcon is a retcon, then we can't have a good faith debate.

So you bring up Cyrodiil's jungle status, good job. The reason everyone in Morrowind says it's a jungle is because they were coded to quote the book ''Provinces of Tamriel'', as to why that book says Cyrodiil is jungle, well, that's inconsistent.

At best there are a handful of retcons, and those all have explanations. I recall you hating on ESO showing Summerset in just the way it was meant to be just because you disliked it.

You were saying these weren't retcons or inconsistent before, so I'm glad we're past that.

You can bring up my admitted biases (though I wouldnt say I hate Summerset because its the way it was meant to be), but this is aside the point.

The point is that the Elder Scrolls universe is not internally consistent. The core direction of the series has changed with every other game to suit the whims of the developers. The series has lacked a core group of writers with a consistent vision since the morrowind era, and it shows. Schick did the best he could, but even he was working around business decisions that were entirely out of his control.

In The Elder Scrolls, mechanical needs and topical trends will always take priority over established worldbuilding. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is aside the point. Whether other games work the same way and to what extent they do so is aside the point. This is merely the reality of the situation.

With that in mind, it becomes a fruitless exercise to try and explain certain things in-universe. To bring this back to the topic of the thread, ayleids were probably meant to have bird features (likely through magic) when that book was written. At the very least, their armor, weapons, and clothing were meant to give off that impression.

Neither of these things are consistent with what we've seen from them in the series. If you want to head-canon this in a way that makes sense then that's totally cool, but we can't keep assuming that the developers themselves actually have answers to these questions beyond "symbolism" "transcription errors" and the unreliable narrator.

There is no master plan here. No one is steering the ship. There's just a company pragmatically catering to whatever it feels is popular, and (in my opinion) with as little creative effort as possible.

It's a shame too because there's clearly a ton of talented writers here, and when they're allowed to be creative they do a good job of it.

Edit: For the sake of intellectual honesty, and as an olive branch, I'll admit looking back that I shouldn't have blatantly said the entire first pocket guide has been retconned. When I wrote that I was still sore over the direction of the series. My point was that so much of it has been retconned at this point, that you shouldn't rely on it as a source. I stand by this 100%. The developers are clearly willing to contradict whatever is in it for their own convenience. It's just not worth trusting when we have more recent sources.

Ajaxandriel

psychotrip wrote: »

The way you guys try your best to fit everything together is brilliant but fruitless. The elder scrolls lore is not a puzzle box, nor a jigsaw puzzle. There's no treasure in the box, and no picture in the puzzle.

Well, yeah ...Making one's own headcanon for the sake of one's immersion (and sharing it to anyone who would enjoy such an interpretation)... It's the half of the purpose and the fun of any lore discussion (I don't know how far it's fruitless) The fun of imagination.
And the other half is simply quoting the lore facts, the earliest to the lastest.

I agree there is no room for a secret box in the puzzlebox as you said, or any other riddle to be discovered by the fans themselves.

I agree too there are obvious retcons in TES(O) lore.
But now, I'd have 2 points ^^

- There are several different intensity levels of retcons.

Some are not actual retcons but revelations - intended path of the story with hints leading to it (Chekhov's gun)
Some are simple revisions or reinterpretation of what you witnessed in previous work (classical expandings of the story)
Some are stronger additions to the setting ("it was simply there, outside the panel")
Some are plain retcons, based on contradicting story facts and weaving them into a new "truth" out of it
Some are hard retcons that I'd call erasing or "re-telling" like: "Oh you read that? it was a mistake, forget that, now it is this"
Some are even reboots, when you keep the topic while publicly chaning the universe and its rules in the background.

To some extent, these different kinds of retcon cannot be distinguished by a fan/reader. A brilliant plain retcon can be understood as a revelation ... and a badly forseen revelation can waste a story like a hard retelling.

(Look, try to classify "Darth Vader being Luke's father")

TES makes any types of retcons.
It's even hard to say if each TES game is a reboot of the same universe or not.
In fact, when some people don't recognize ESO lore as the same universe as TES3 or 5, they implicitly see it as a "reboot" - and the only thing that can prevent this, is the "faith" in "the One canon" which is chosen by Bethesda. Kirkbride chose to break free out of it somehow, for instance.
When Julian LeFay said "What it is now, however, is not what I intended with the series. That doesn't make it wrong or bad, of course, just different" , that means it would have been a different universe, and if any future developer seek to go back there to try and make such a game, he would make a Reboot.

- Second point, the late 90s TES lore is already a huge retcon of earlier one, as you noticed. Of course TES3 and the PGE did a huge work on the worldbuilding and many fans like you take it as the reference ...So it is - a reference.
But people who became fan with Skyrim or ESO just happen to have (and enjoy) other references.

So did the (less numerous) fans of Arena/Daggerfall/Battlespire who had their reference, which was different too.
And their lorebase was also butchered by the Morrowind team.
A minute of silence for that good old lore. I'm joking here, but you see what I mean.
Well, maybe it was "boring" and "unoriginal" DnD-like thing, but it doesn't deserve such despise! it had its own charm and even if I never played those games, I can feel this old-fashioned charm.

When I found this stuff https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Arena:Races it was like a gold mine to me. Look!
Thy race is tall and stately, for thou art kings among princes. Thy people were first on this land to breathe the spring air and first to leap, nimble with the wind. Thine eyes canst see all even when naught is out but the Mistress of the Night...
...I want to play such a game designed from this, now!



Arena is a blank and full-of-potential world, and later games restricted this for the sake of deepening. I have nothing against deepening, of course, but it spoils some older charms and reticts the world ...that's it.
So does ESO in turn.
At the end of the day, it's all a matter of tastes.


Back to the topic, as far as the hagravens can get birdlike features, maybe some Ayleids got such features too, through pacts or spells.