VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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.
VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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.
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: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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.
TequilaFire wrote: »On topic if Daedra don't like mortals dueling, why do they run so many arenas?
NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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.
NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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?
VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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.
NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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).
NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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.
VaranisArano wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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).
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: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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).
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: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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).
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: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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?
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: »atherusmora wrote: »
Well the Vestige isn't technically mortal
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.
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.
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."
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."