The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
Dueling Banned in Fargrave
-
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.2 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I'm afraid we disagree. It's absolutely a matter of definitions, not a matter of dictating that one is right and one is wrong. It's just not the case that "X can be killed, thus they are mortals" is a commonly accepted belief in Tamriel. It's a lot more complicated than that.
In fact, the more I look into it, the more counterexamples I find. Lots and lots of people can be killed who don't consider themselves mortals.
Daedra
Now, it is true that Daedra seem to think anything not a daedra is a mortal.
In the case of the Blackwood quests, its an anti-daedra ward. Constructed by someone to harm daedra, and stop everyone else. You can't just waltz in there either- you need to use Lyranth's amulet that she constructed for a mortal (a non-daedra, to her) to use.
It does not follow that everyone not a daedra is therefore mortal in the grand scheme of things. To say so is subscribing to Lyranth's dichotomy.
The Tribunal
Following along the same lines as the Vampire definition of supernaturally empowered vs non-supernatural mortals, we have the Tribunal and their dichotomy.
"Can you, mortal, presume to judge the actions and motives of a god? - Vivec, TES 3
"When a god knows loss, mortals suffer." - Vivec, ESO
Almalexia and Sotha Sil likewise draw a firm line between themselves as gods and the rest of mortals, with the latter saying, "Count your blessings that I have other matters to attend to, mortal. I have half a mind to show you just how powerful I am."
At least two, and perhaps all three, of the Tribunes are able to be killed. They firmly believe there to be a distinction between themselves and mortals.
Dagoth Ur
Dagoth Ur pulls out a clear counterexample: "Or will you share the Heart with your followers, as I have, and breed a new race of divine immortals?" The Heartwights he speaks of can be killed, yet are returned from death by magical means, so he considers them immortal. Yet we absolutely can kill them prior to destroying the heart.
Liches
The King of Worms (Daggerfall Era Lich Mannimarco) calls the player character a mortal, in contrast to himself.
Likewise, in the Tribunal DLC, lich Barilzar says, "For all eternity, I am damned to walk in this half life, to keep my creation from destroying the hearts and minds of mortals."
Lich Naemon in ESO says, ""I warn you—the Naemon you faced before was fettered by fear … and mortality. I have no such limitations."
As we know, Barilzar and Naemon are both very killable.
We get a hint of why most Liches consider themselves distinct from mortals from Vastarie, who explains, "Souls contain tremendous power, but they place certain checks on mortal will. Divesting the two—soul and mortal form—removes these boundaries. The effect is a virtually limitless magical horizon." Liches separated their soul from their mortal form, and thus most don't consider themselves mortals anymore.
Gods
Finally, consider the example of the gods. Tsun died defending Shor, yet he is alive in Sovngarde. Is he a mortal? Shor himself died (being a version of Lorkhan) yet he's referred in Skyrim, so is he a mortal or not? How about Lorkhan - does he count as a mortal and not a God because he was killed?
TL;DR
TES is filled with unreliable narrators and it doesn't make sense to try to impose a single definition of "X can be killed, thus they are mortals" on the whole of Tamriel. You can't do that without erasing much of the nuance of how different groups like the Tribunal, Vampires, and Liches regard themselves as supernaturally distinct from non-supernatural mortals. There's not a single right way to use "mortal" as a definition in Tamriel from the perspective of the people who actually live in Tamriel.5 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I better not bring up the Aedra which can be killed.
Daedra can only be banished for a while.
On topic if Daedra don't like mortals dueling, why do they run so many arenas?
Edited by TequilaFire on December 1, 2021 2:30PM2 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Sorry, I will skip most and answer to the main part (as it will answer to everything else too): gods are mortal. That is one of the features of Elder Scrolls, that the Divines are actually mortal entities that can be killed. Daedra are the opposite, they can't be killed. Tribunal and Dagoth Ur are closer to Divines here, they are mortals as well.VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I'm afraid we disagree. It's absolutely a matter of definitions, not a matter of dictating that one is right and one is wrong. It's just not the case that "X can be killed, thus they are mortals" is a commonly accepted belief in Tamriel. It's a lot more complicated than that.
In fact, the more I look into it, the more counterexamples I find. Lots and lots of people can be killed who don't consider themselves mortals.
Vampires and lichs are undead... and can be killed, so they are both undead and mortals.
Sovengard is the afterlife. Others go to other divine or daedric planes (mostly divine planes). Somebody being in the afterlife plane is not somebody being alive (usually, dovahkiin excluded).
Overall, mortality is usually not about ability to live long (Gelebor, a simple paladin, is a few thousands years old elf and is not going to die from old age, yet he is just a mortal), it is about whether it is in your nature to revive (like for daedra) or it is in your magic to revive (like for lichs, vampires and everyone else).
The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.1 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭TequilaFire wrote: »On topic if Daedra don't like mortals dueling, why do they run so many arenas?
I guess you can't duel before making a pact to grant your soul to the arena master.The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
And in a bunch of other storylines it's the point that they are not...
Those are storylines that point to the ability of the Vestige to use wayshrine due to the lack of soul. That is the only reason the Vestige may be considered not entirely mortal. That may be encountered in some quests of the base game that chronologically are before the main quest finale. The restoring of the soul makes the Vestige completely mortal, it is at last evidenced by the Blackwood storyline (it was stressed by Meridia as well, actually). Technically the Vestige should lose the ability to travel by wayshrines and to revive, but for obvious gameplay reasons it will never be made. Technically the game should end with the main quest line due to this change, but for the same obvious reasons it is not done.
The Vestige is a mortal turned immortal from being made from chaotic creteria like daedra are now. Them getting their soul back doesn't confirm this is no longer the case.
Daedra, princes and others calling the Vestige mortal doesn't mean they are mortal like anyone else, but not a daedra.
The Vestige can't be "made from chaotic creteria like daedra" and "not a daedra" at the same time.
Being called a mortal that doesn't mean a mortal is great, though. Being called a vampire that doesn't mean a vampire or being called a mer that doesn't mean a mer is something I should use in the future.
Players have a mortal mind and a body that mimics that of a mortal made from chaotic creatia. You also have a daedric soul (called a vestige) and, when you get your soul back from Molag Bal, you will also simultaneously have a mortal's soul. So you have two souls.
It's possible that daedra like Lyranth don't count this and still consider you a mortal since you were born a mortal. Your mortal mind (the real you) can't possibly be older than a mortal lifespan at this point in time. As in, the player character did not exist at the beginning of time like daedra and Lyranth did, so there's still a sizable distinction there.
@Wolf_Eye
What is your source that the mind of the vestige has changed to behave as one made from chaotic creteria? Is this an opinion or something based in lore?0 -
Wolf_Eye✭✭✭✭✭
✭NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
And in a bunch of other storylines it's the point that they are not...
Those are storylines that point to the ability of the Vestige to use wayshrine due to the lack of soul. That is the only reason the Vestige may be considered not entirely mortal. That may be encountered in some quests of the base game that chronologically are before the main quest finale. The restoring of the soul makes the Vestige completely mortal, it is at last evidenced by the Blackwood storyline (it was stressed by Meridia as well, actually). Technically the Vestige should lose the ability to travel by wayshrines and to revive, but for obvious gameplay reasons it will never be made. Technically the game should end with the main quest line due to this change, but for the same obvious reasons it is not done.
The Vestige is a mortal turned immortal from being made from chaotic creteria like daedra are now. Them getting their soul back doesn't confirm this is no longer the case.
Daedra, princes and others calling the Vestige mortal doesn't mean they are mortal like anyone else, but not a daedra.
The Vestige can't be "made from chaotic creteria like daedra" and "not a daedra" at the same time.
Being called a mortal that doesn't mean a mortal is great, though. Being called a vampire that doesn't mean a vampire or being called a mer that doesn't mean a mer is something I should use in the future.
Players have a mortal mind and a body that mimics that of a mortal made from chaotic creatia. You also have a daedric soul (called a vestige) and, when you get your soul back from Molag Bal, you will also simultaneously have a mortal's soul. So you have two souls.
It's possible that daedra like Lyranth don't count this and still consider you a mortal since you were born a mortal. Your mortal mind (the real you) can't possibly be older than a mortal lifespan at this point in time. As in, the player character did not exist at the beginning of time like daedra and Lyranth did, so there's still a sizable distinction there.
@Wolf_Eye
What is your source that the mind of the vestige has changed to behave as one made from chaotic creteria? Is this an opinion or something based in lore?
It's not my idea. I got this from an in-game lore book: Chaotic Creatia: The Azure Plasm.
It's found somewhere in Coldharbour. I think it's in the Argonian area/city/town place. It talks about the Soul Shriven, of which we are canonically confirmed to be, and how they are made (which is what Mannimarco did when he sacrificed our soul to Molag Bal).
1 -
Wolf_Eye✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I actually have a feeling that the prologue quest is a "call back" to Lyranth's first quest.
In the base game zone, where you meet Lyranth in the Ebonheart pact (the first time the player can possibly meet her, if doing quests in order), she states that a "mortal's touch" will break her bonds and free her.
Quote: "The bindings unravel at a mortal's touch. Not unlike how mortals unravel at my touch.
Go on, then. Unravel."
She also only refers to the vestige as "little mortal" in all of her base game quests, in spite of her dialogue recognizing that the vestige is not like the others.
Canonically, the base game zones happen before you get your soul back, and the entire questlines are written with this in mind. Back when the game first launched, you couldn't even play the base game zones before going through the Coldharbour prologue and losing your soul. So I think this means we've always been able to break wards that can only be broken by mortals, regardless of the status of our soul (or lack thereof).
1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
And in a bunch of other storylines it's the point that they are not...
Those are storylines that point to the ability of the Vestige to use wayshrine due to the lack of soul. That is the only reason the Vestige may be considered not entirely mortal. That may be encountered in some quests of the base game that chronologically are before the main quest finale. The restoring of the soul makes the Vestige completely mortal, it is at last evidenced by the Blackwood storyline (it was stressed by Meridia as well, actually). Technically the Vestige should lose the ability to travel by wayshrines and to revive, but for obvious gameplay reasons it will never be made. Technically the game should end with the main quest line due to this change, but for the same obvious reasons it is not done.
The Vestige is a mortal turned immortal from being made from chaotic creteria like daedra are now. Them getting their soul back doesn't confirm this is no longer the case.
Daedra, princes and others calling the Vestige mortal doesn't mean they are mortal like anyone else, but not a daedra.
The Vestige can't be "made from chaotic creteria like daedra" and "not a daedra" at the same time.
Being called a mortal that doesn't mean a mortal is great, though. Being called a vampire that doesn't mean a vampire or being called a mer that doesn't mean a mer is something I should use in the future.
Players have a mortal mind and a body that mimics that of a mortal made from chaotic creatia. You also have a daedric soul (called a vestige) and, when you get your soul back from Molag Bal, you will also simultaneously have a mortal's soul. So you have two souls.
It's possible that daedra like Lyranth don't count this and still consider you a mortal since you were born a mortal. Your mortal mind (the real you) can't possibly be older than a mortal lifespan at this point in time. As in, the player character did not exist at the beginning of time like daedra and Lyranth did, so there's still a sizable distinction there.
@Wolf_Eye
What is your source that the mind of the vestige has changed to behave as one made from chaotic creteria? Is this an opinion or something based in lore?
It's not my idea. I got this from an in-game lore book: Chaotic Creatia: The Azure Plasm.
It's found somewhere in Coldharbour. I think it's in the Argonian area/city/town place. It talks about the Soul Shriven, of which we are canonically confirmed to be, and how they are made (which is what Mannimarco did when he sacrificed our soul to Molag Bal).
A vestige is a general term that applies to soul shriven as they have had their souls replaced with a daedric soul. However, the Vestige hero in our story is an anomaly, and neither their body nor mind behaves as s soul shriven. As such we cannot apply such things in general terms to our Vestige. We only know something is very different and nothing more.0 -
Wolf_Eye✭✭✭✭✭
✭NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
And in a bunch of other storylines it's the point that they are not...
Those are storylines that point to the ability of the Vestige to use wayshrine due to the lack of soul. That is the only reason the Vestige may be considered not entirely mortal. That may be encountered in some quests of the base game that chronologically are before the main quest finale. The restoring of the soul makes the Vestige completely mortal, it is at last evidenced by the Blackwood storyline (it was stressed by Meridia as well, actually). Technically the Vestige should lose the ability to travel by wayshrines and to revive, but for obvious gameplay reasons it will never be made. Technically the game should end with the main quest line due to this change, but for the same obvious reasons it is not done.
The Vestige is a mortal turned immortal from being made from chaotic creteria like daedra are now. Them getting their soul back doesn't confirm this is no longer the case.
Daedra, princes and others calling the Vestige mortal doesn't mean they are mortal like anyone else, but not a daedra.
The Vestige can't be "made from chaotic creteria like daedra" and "not a daedra" at the same time.
Being called a mortal that doesn't mean a mortal is great, though. Being called a vampire that doesn't mean a vampire or being called a mer that doesn't mean a mer is something I should use in the future.
Players have a mortal mind and a body that mimics that of a mortal made from chaotic creatia. You also have a daedric soul (called a vestige) and, when you get your soul back from Molag Bal, you will also simultaneously have a mortal's soul. So you have two souls.
It's possible that daedra like Lyranth don't count this and still consider you a mortal since you were born a mortal. Your mortal mind (the real you) can't possibly be older than a mortal lifespan at this point in time. As in, the player character did not exist at the beginning of time like daedra and Lyranth did, so there's still a sizable distinction there.
@Wolf_Eye
What is your source that the mind of the vestige has changed to behave as one made from chaotic creteria? Is this an opinion or something based in lore?
It's not my idea. I got this from an in-game lore book: Chaotic Creatia: The Azure Plasm.
It's found somewhere in Coldharbour. I think it's in the Argonian area/city/town place. It talks about the Soul Shriven, of which we are canonically confirmed to be, and how they are made (which is what Mannimarco did when he sacrificed our soul to Molag Bal).
A vestige is a general term that applies to soul shriven as they have had their souls replaced with a daedric soul. However, the Vestige hero in our story is an anomaly, and neither their body nor mind behaves as s soul shriven. As such we cannot apply such things in general terms to our Vestige. We only know something is very different and nothing more.
The book explains the anomaly as well of how an individual of amazing Anuic properties might be able to revive an infinite amount of times without becoming all wrinkly like the typical soul shriven.
Trust me, I don't really like the idea of my character being a daedric mortal hybrid creature, but I am only re-stating what the lorebook says. For me, I just ignore the lorebook totally and continue with my internal headcanons about my character, who is completely and perfectly mortal without any "daedric parts" .1 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I actually have a feeling that the prologue quest is a "call back" to Lyranth's first quest.
In the base game zone, where you meet Lyranth in the Ebonheart pact (the first time the player can possibly meet her, if doing quests in order), she states that a "mortal's touch" will break her bonds and free her.
Quote: "The bindings unravel at a mortal's touch. Not unlike how mortals unravel at my touch.
Go on, then. Unravel."
She also only refers to the vestige as "little mortal" in all of her base game quests, in spite of her dialogue recognizing that the vestige is not like the others.
Canonically, the base game zones happen before you get your soul back, and the entire questlines are written with this in mind. Back when the game first launched, you couldn't even play the base game zones before going through the Coldharbour prologue and losing your soul. So I think this means we've always been able to break wards that can only be broken by mortals, regardless of the status of our soul (or lack thereof).
I absolutely agree that all base game zones (their questlines) canonically happen before Coldharbor. Still I am not sure that she is entirely wrong even then. But the state of main character before getting the soul is much more uncertain with much more possible (and opposite) ideas being right or wrong with equal proving base. Yet calling the Vestige that way only by habit while normal for daedra is not normal for her own goal there (what if her joke happen to be actually a joke and Vestige is destroyed by the ward? she would be in trouble of searching for another willing soul).The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.2 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Sorry, I will skip most and answer to the main part (as it will answer to everything else too): gods are mortal. That is one of the features of Elder Scrolls, that the Divines are actually mortal entities that can be killed. Daedra are the opposite, they can't be killed. Tribunal and Dagoth Ur are closer to Divines here, they are mortals as well.VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I'm afraid we disagree. It's absolutely a matter of definitions, not a matter of dictating that one is right and one is wrong. It's just not the case that "X can be killed, thus they are mortals" is a commonly accepted belief in Tamriel. It's a lot more complicated than that.
In fact, the more I look into it, the more counterexamples I find. Lots and lots of people can be killed who don't consider themselves mortals.
Vampires and lichs are undead... and can be killed, so they are both undead and mortals.
Sovengard is the afterlife. Others go to other divine or daedric planes (mostly divine planes). Somebody being in the afterlife plane is not somebody being alive (usually, dovahkiin excluded).
Overall, mortality is usually not about ability to live long (Gelebor, a simple paladin, is a few thousands years old elf and is not going to die from old age, yet he is just a mortal), it is about whether it is in your nature to revive (like for daedra) or it is in your magic to revive (like for lichs, vampires and everyone else).
You keep coming back to the definition of "X can be killed, thus they are mortal" when that's not the only definition we see in lore or the games.
This is derailing from dueling in Fargrave, so I'll try to being it back around with an example of why I believe the multiple definitions and perspectives are important and add nuance to The Elder Scrolls.
The Grasp in Fargrave are daedra. They use the daedric definition i.e. non-daedra are mortals. So they consider all player characters to be mortals, because all player characters are proven to be non-daedra.
Meanwhile, a Vampire Player who goes to Fargrave may be reasonable offended to be lumped in with the rest of the mortals when clearly they are supernaturally distinct. Mortals are non-supernatural. After all, pretty much every major vampire in the TES series from Lamae Bal to Lord Harkon and Serana regards vampires as in a different category than mortals, so it's natural that they would use the vampiric definition.
That's the sort of roleplaying, nuance, and unreliable narrators that the TES games are built on. We don't need one true definition of what it means to be a mortal. The amazing thing about the Elder Scrolls universe is that the uncertainty and lack of "Word of God" type definitions creates roleplaying moments like "What does a vampire player feel when they go to Fargrave, and the Daedra keep treating them like any other non-supernatural mortal?" Or even questions like "Do dremora like Lyranth call vampires mortal because they are killable, or also because the dremora are offended to be lumped in with all the other supernatural people under the vampiric definition?"
I don't expect to convince anyone who prefers sure and certain answers, but I think the uncertainty makes the TES settings and cultures all the more complex and interesting because of the nuance and roleplaying it allows.2 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »
We don't need one true definition of what it means to be a mortal.
Sorry, I will skip most and answer to the main part (as it will answer to everything else too): gods are mortal. That is one of the features of Elder Scrolls, that the Divines are actually mortal entities that can be killed. Daedra are the opposite, they can't be killed. Tribunal and Dagoth Ur are closer to Divines here, they are mortals as well.VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I'm afraid we disagree. It's absolutely a matter of definitions, not a matter of dictating that one is right and one is wrong. It's just not the case that "X can be killed, thus they are mortals" is a commonly accepted belief in Tamriel. It's a lot more complicated than that.
In fact, the more I look into it, the more counterexamples I find. Lots and lots of people can be killed who don't consider themselves mortals.
Vampires and lichs are undead... and can be killed, so they are both undead and mortals.
Sovengard is the afterlife. Others go to other divine or daedric planes (mostly divine planes). Somebody being in the afterlife plane is not somebody being alive (usually, dovahkiin excluded).
Overall, mortality is usually not about ability to live long (Gelebor, a simple paladin, is a few thousands years old elf and is not going to die from old age, yet he is just a mortal), it is about whether it is in your nature to revive (like for daedra) or it is in your magic to revive (like for lichs, vampires and everyone else).
But we do, if we want to understand each other. "Mortals are non-supernatural". Why? When? How? Did Sai Sahan stopped being mortal just because he has studied shehai and is partly supernatural now? Is dovahkiin (and a huge number of emperors) not mortal just because he has Akatosh supernatural blood in his veins? Dunmer and orsimer are cursed races, should we consider them the same as werecreatures regarding mortality just because of the curse? What about elves compared to humans, are they supernatural enough?The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.1 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »
We don't need one true definition of what it means to be a mortal.
Sorry, I will skip most and answer to the main part (as it will answer to everything else too): gods are mortal. That is one of the features of Elder Scrolls, that the Divines are actually mortal entities that can be killed. Daedra are the opposite, they can't be killed. Tribunal and Dagoth Ur are closer to Divines here, they are mortals as well.VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I'm afraid we disagree. It's absolutely a matter of definitions, not a matter of dictating that one is right and one is wrong. It's just not the case that "X can be killed, thus they are mortals" is a commonly accepted belief in Tamriel. It's a lot more complicated than that.
In fact, the more I look into it, the more counterexamples I find. Lots and lots of people can be killed who don't consider themselves mortals.
Vampires and lichs are undead... and can be killed, so they are both undead and mortals.
Sovengard is the afterlife. Others go to other divine or daedric planes (mostly divine planes). Somebody being in the afterlife plane is not somebody being alive (usually, dovahkiin excluded).
Overall, mortality is usually not about ability to live long (Gelebor, a simple paladin, is a few thousands years old elf and is not going to die from old age, yet he is just a mortal), it is about whether it is in your nature to revive (like for daedra) or it is in your magic to revive (like for lichs, vampires and everyone else).
But we do, if we want to understand each other. "Mortals are non-supernatural". Why? When? How? Did Sai Sahan stopped being mortal just because he has studied shehai and is partly supernatural now? Is dovahkiin (and a huge number of emperors) not mortal just because he has Akatosh supernatural blood in his veins? Dunmer and orsimer are cursed races, should we consider them the same as werecreatures regarding mortality just because of the curse? What about elves compared to humans, are they supernatural enough?
Once again, we're straying far away from Fargrave.
I haven't really had any problems understanding you.
And I don't think there's been any problems with understanding the quotes I've provided showing that vampires, gods, heartwights, and liches, don't consider themselves mortals either.
So perhaps, instead of trying to come up with one true rule and then applying it even when it directly contradicts what those groups think about themselves, maybe we listen to what those groups say.
Since you ask about the Dragonborn, it's worth you looking up what the various Dragonborn thought about themselves and past Dragonborn. I'll just note that Paarthurnax uses joor/mortal interchangeably to refer to the Last Dragonborn, and that the LDB must be able to understand the shout Joor Zah Frul to properly use Dragonrend.
Which, in the same light as the Vampire visiting Fargrave, raises some good roleplaying questions! After all, a Vampire Dovahkiin still understands mortality, time, and finiteness. So again, while they might qualify as a joor/mortal to a Dovah, there's no reason that they have to accept the label from Paarthurnax as the gospel truth, when their fellow vampire Lord Harkon tells them that all mortals are prey.1 -
Olauron✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »
We don't need one true definition of what it means to be a mortal.
Sorry, I will skip most and answer to the main part (as it will answer to everything else too): gods are mortal. That is one of the features of Elder Scrolls, that the Divines are actually mortal entities that can be killed. Daedra are the opposite, they can't be killed. Tribunal and Dagoth Ur are closer to Divines here, they are mortals as well.VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »
Actually, the Vestige is technically a mortal, that is the story driving point in the prologue to Blackwood.
Not really as that's the main driving point of the Bangkorai story.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:To_Walk_on_Far_Shores
Again, that is the state pre reclaiming soul (it is written in the dialogue in your own link). Anyway, the later content is always more important in Elder Scrolls, and now we have this:
Why don't you just use the amulet yourself? Why do you need me?
"The protective ward is deadly to Daedra. As a mortal, you are perfectly immune to any such dangers. The ward simply bars your way.
Besides, the amulet can only be used by a mortal. That's part of the reason it can destroy the ward."
So the ward won't hurt me?
"As a mortal, you are immune to the harmful effects of the protective ward. As long as it is in place, however, it will prevent either of us from passing through the warded doorway.
That is its primary function, after all."
She may just mean "mortal" as in "not a daedra like herself."
For example, Lamae Bal considers her Blood Scions distinct from mortals. Rada al-Saran likewise considers himself and other vampires as distinct from mortals. Yet Lyranth still happily calls vampire players "mortal."
Vampires can be killed, thus they are mortals. Otherwise prince A'tor should be considered not mortal (and as a result every mortal should be considered not mortal).
Now, you can subscribe to Lyranth's definition of "mortal" if you want. Just, ah, let's remember that hers is not the only definition out there. The Elder Scrolls is filled with unreliable narrators who think they are correct.
Again, it is not about Lyranth's definition or Lyranth's narration. It is about a ward that worked as it worked. Clearly that ward was created by a mortal ot stop daedra, so is it coincidence that the definition of a mortal by a mortal and a definition of a mortal by a daedra are the same? No, it is highly unlikely that this is the coincidence.
As for vampires, it is only their words and only their opinion that they are not mortals, that is not proved by any practical demonstration. By their definition any mortal should be considered immortal, because any mortal can be returned from death by supernatural (magical) means. Since any A can't be not A, their definition is wrong.
I'm afraid we disagree. It's absolutely a matter of definitions, not a matter of dictating that one is right and one is wrong. It's just not the case that "X can be killed, thus they are mortals" is a commonly accepted belief in Tamriel. It's a lot more complicated than that.
In fact, the more I look into it, the more counterexamples I find. Lots and lots of people can be killed who don't consider themselves mortals.
Vampires and lichs are undead... and can be killed, so they are both undead and mortals.
Sovengard is the afterlife. Others go to other divine or daedric planes (mostly divine planes). Somebody being in the afterlife plane is not somebody being alive (usually, dovahkiin excluded).
Overall, mortality is usually not about ability to live long (Gelebor, a simple paladin, is a few thousands years old elf and is not going to die from old age, yet he is just a mortal), it is about whether it is in your nature to revive (like for daedra) or it is in your magic to revive (like for lichs, vampires and everyone else).
But we do, if we want to understand each other. "Mortals are non-supernatural". Why? When? How? Did Sai Sahan stopped being mortal just because he has studied shehai and is partly supernatural now? Is dovahkiin (and a huge number of emperors) not mortal just because he has Akatosh supernatural blood in his veins? Dunmer and orsimer are cursed races, should we consider them the same as werecreatures regarding mortality just because of the curse? What about elves compared to humans, are they supernatural enough?
Once again, we're straying far away from Fargrave.
I haven't really had any problems understanding you.
And I don't think there's been any problems with understanding the quotes I've provided showing that vampires, gods, heartwights, and liches, don't consider themselves mortals either.
So perhaps, instead of trying to come up with one true rule and then applying it even when it directly contradicts what those groups think about themselves, maybe we listen to what those groups say.
Since you ask about the Dragonborn, it's worth you looking up what the various Dragonborn thought about themselves and past Dragonborn. I'll just note that Paarthurnax uses joor/mortal interchangeably to refer to the Last Dragonborn, and that the LDB must be able to understand the shout Joor Zah Frul to properly use Dragonrend.
Which, in the same light as the Vampire visiting Fargrave, raises some good roleplaying questions! After all, a Vampire Dovahkiin still understands mortality, time, and finiteness. So again, while they might qualify as a joor/mortal to a Dovah, there's no reason that they have to accept the label from Paarthurnax as the gospel truth, when their fellow vampire Lord Harkon tells them that all mortals are prey.
The snow elf rulers were not considering themselves mortals. The ayleid sorcerer kings were not considering themselves mortals. Should we now stop using a mortal tag on them? They were wrong in their considering (with the possible exception of one notable half-daedra). Everyone can consider himself whoever he wants, a mortal, an apple, a god. There are so many mages who consider themselves the best of the best mage that I don't have so many fingers on all my hands and feet. This in-world roleplaying is just it, considering. Harkon may consider himself an alpha predator, but he is doomed to fail to his own daughter.
As for the Fargrave, every mortal is a guest there, and as a guest it is his sacred duty to accept the rules of the owner or to get out.The Three Storm Sharks, episode 8 released on january the 8th.
One mer to rule them all,
one mer to find them,
One mer to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »There's not a single right way to use "mortal" as a definition in Tamriel from the perspective of the people who actually live in Tamriel.
Yes, but the question of the Vestige's default mortal status (or lack thereof) is if they have a Daedric soul due to what happened in Coldharbour. And the answer to that is no, as shown by the amulet.
The Vestige may well be not mortal due to being a Vampire or having some yet to be explained Anuic property, but they aren't daedric. And thus Lyranth can call the Vestige all she wants because this is how she defines it.
Edit
I do agree that the concept of what is a mortal is more complicated than just "can revive."Edited by spartaxoxo on December 1, 2021 9:22PM2 -
Vevvev✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »There's not a single right way to use "mortal" as a definition in Tamriel from the perspective of the people who actually live in Tamriel.
Yes, but the question of the Vestige's default mortal status (or lack thereof) is if they have a Daedric soul due to what happened in Coldharbour. And the answer to that is no, as shown by the amulet.
The Vestige may well be not mortal due to being a Vampire or having some yet to be explained Anuic property, but they aren't daedric. And thus Lyranth can call the Vestige all she wants because this is how she defines it.
Edit
I do agree that the concept of what is a mortal is more complicated than just "can revive."
They're not Daedric, they're Anuic. It's written into the very lore itself that the Vestige is not daedra.
"Then there are the poor slaves known as the Soul Shriven. Each is a mortal kidnapped from Mundus at the moment of death, his or her soul stolen by Molag Bal for some unthinkable purpose, and given in exchange the vestige that enables him or her to form a counterfeit body here in Coldharbour. But they are not native to Oblivion, so a Soul Shriven's body is a sad imitation of the body worn in life, suffering rapid wear and decay until it dies—a death that is no liberation, for its vestige only forms a body once again, over and over, ad infinitum ….
Such are the facts. What follows is speculation, born of conversations with the Sojourner during his infrequent and unpredictable visits. His theory is that the Soul Shriven's bodies are flawed because they have lost the focusing principle of their Anuic souls, so their vestiges are imperfect patterns. I concurred that this was likely, and then proposed the theoretical possibility of a Soul Shriven who, despite having lost his or her soul, possessed some other intrinsic Anuic aspect. This shall-we-say "paragon" Soul Shriven would form an unflawed body in Coldharbour that was a perfect duplicate of the body worn in Mundus. In fact, if this paragon bore a sufficiently high Anuic valence, upon contact with Padomaic creatia its body would form almost instantaneously.
The Sojourner scoffed at my theory, but seemed taken with the idea nonetheless. He went on to speculate that if such a thing were possible, it would probably occur in a situation where the Mundus was in existential jeopardy. In that case the Heart of Nirn would spontaneously generate such "paragon" individuals as a way of defending itself from destruction, in a manner analogous to the way the mortal body fights off infection.
Ah, Sojourner—how I miss your stimulating conversation. Such flights of fantasy! And yet, given the wonders I've seen in my prolonged existence upon this plane, is anything really impossible?"
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Chaotic_Creatia:_The_Azure_PlasmPC NA - Ceyanna Ashton - Breton Vampire MagDK1 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »There's not a single right way to use "mortal" as a definition in Tamriel from the perspective of the people who actually live in Tamriel.
Yes, but the question of the Vestige's default mortal status (or lack thereof) is if they have a Daedric soul due to what happened in Coldharbour. And the answer to that is no, as shown by the amulet.
The Vestige may well be not mortal due to being a Vampire or having some yet to be explained Anuic property, but they aren't daedric. And thus Lyranth can call the Vestige all she wants because this is how she defines it.
Edit
I do agree that the concept of what is a mortal is more complicated than just "can revive."
Yep. Lyranth's correct we aren't daedra. For that matter, if we were, Fargrave implies that we'd be completely bound by the Strictures as soon as we walked in and we'd know them implicitly.
As for the anuic property(s), I've got a few thoughts on where it has been explained (At least in terms of chronological gameplay for players who started playing as a Soul-Shriven Vestige like the game originally did.)
Prior to the Morrowind patch, everyone started out as a Soul Shriven and thus had the Prophet's skyshard from the the beginning. The Prohpet: "But first, you must re-attune yourself to Nirn in order to regain your physical form. To do this, you will need a skyshard. A shard of Aetherial magicka that carries the essence of Nirn. Some link them to Lorkhan, the missing god of creation. If you collect and absorb its power, it should restore your corporeal form. I will summon one of these shards for you to absorb."
And after the Vestige regains their soul, Meridia implies that the use of the Amulet of Kings has permanently altered them: "Gone forever, but their memory remains. I can see the light burning brightly behind your eyes. Your friend is a part of you now, just as the strength of the Divines burns like a flame within your renewed soul."
And so while the explanation of the Sojourner that the Vestige is possibly a "paragon" Soul Shriven with a high enough Anuic valence that they can regenerate a perfect replica body from Padomaic chaos creatia may or may not be the exact truth - see previous comments about unreliable narrators - it does seem to match fairly well with both gameplay and what knowledgable NPCs are telling us.1
