UESP Forums

Hey, now, please keep this thread civil.

And what was your point?
You said he was trolling which he was not. Some people want more information. That's just the way it is. There's no reason to attack someone because of it.

Mars ignore him mate, rejoin the chat and leave him to the moderators.



TES does have some things going for it yes, there is the duality most quest lines, more than 1 way to view them. That perhaps is TES Lore best point though beth failed to explore it very well in Oblivion. Morrowind did better, it provided a lot more background and best of all you had to go out and find it too so it generated gameplay as a bonus. That is how it should work.

To be honest morrowind I think came in with just enough lore to make a decent example of a lore game on the PC. Few games released directly to a computer platform have a good lore system . Its the ones that are made in to games later that tend to have the deep meaningful lore because they bring it with them. So in that respect, Morrowind did okay considering.

But Oblivions lore is the Lore is unnecessarily sparse and I hope thats not the direction Skyrim takes but deep down I am expecting it to be similar.

Idealy I want to see Skyrim lore on the sort of level that Shivering Isles Lore was presented, if they do that, I'll be happy with Skyrim Lore.
I thought SI lore was pretty well rounded and utterly focused on the topic at hand, Morrowind lore was the same, utterly focused on morrowind.

I think that is the secret to success for TES lore and it allows Beth a free hand in other areas.

I read somewhere that there are over 300 books featured in Skyrim. That's quite a lot and I'm positive that are some new ones containing lore. But for now we can only hope that the quality of the lore remains good.

I cannot remember how many old one existed that got carried over from morrowind.

Books are a vital part of background lore, but Beths tendency has been towards character lore, in game acts and dialog, of late. Which it something I like to see and adopted it in my own mods. It is very popular, much more popular because players do not have to read books. Of course I do in order to get the details but thats not the point.

The point is in game lore delivered as part of the game is I believe the direction Skyrim will take. They have already quoted the number of lines of dialog in Skyrim, so I expect a lot of lore will be delivered that way.

I believe the God Howard announced that the majority (granted, that could be 51% for all I know) of the books will be 'new'. I guess they have 200 years to cover with lore, unless the leave that to Greg Keyes, but I live in hope it will be in depth lore.

I understand what you mean regarding the amount of 'gaps' in lore, but then again I agree with River that this provides the ability to read between the lines and sort of make the world your own. I find it just as immersive to have a world with a merky lore as well as one where you know pretty much every detail. Apologies if this made no sense, I'm very tired.

And your flaming is not wanted, nor is it getting you anywhere Da_BossMaN69.

A majority of books would be new, that sounds like good news. We can pretty much guess which old books will be kept, they have become standard affairs in TES. Also Skyrim is probably the province covered best by game lore before Skyrim is even released so I really hope to see more detail provided for that.

Reading through the skyrim lore previously I found there was a lot going on in the province already.

lore is sketched out pretty roughly until it is visited by a game. This is true of most fictional series', not just TES

most of the books in Oblivion seemed to be new additions to the game compared with Morrowind, but i thought it was a nice touch being able to read the same books in both games cos they took on different significance. In fact several books i virtually ignored in Morrowind were interesting to me in Oblivion

i think we know a lot about Skyrim is because of its links with Vvardenfell and the Dunmer; Bloodmoon was our first taste of the Nord culture and as such Skyrim is unique in the series in that it'll have featured in two games - but as far as the title of the thread is concerned, imo lore is often just rumour until the hero has explored it in a game, so I would say Skyrim will define the lore rather than be faithful/unfaithful to it

Good point, I have thought about that before and I think we will see what they say about the Oblivion Crisis in Skyrim, if they say anything at all.

It was intentionally left fairly vague since that leaves them options when designing their games.

All this talk of Skyrim and Shivering Isles has made be want to do the Shivering Isles again.

I think SI was one of the best expansions I have seen for any TES game.

i agree , SI is better than most full games imo

As to Skyrim keeping up with the lore of previous games, it is said that Skyrim or at least the land of Skyrim is the first place men ever settled in tamriel. So there's a lot of story there. Also, I believe in the second era, the graybeards began to speak causing massive storms to come, the surrounding villages evacuated their people but talos went to them. When thy spoke his name the world shook and they told him he will be the first king of tamriel but he must go south(Cyrodil) to do so. He was slain but rose from the dead and became Tiber septim, the first In the septim bloodline and starting the 3rd era.

So Skyrim is sort of the starting point of all of the tamriel we know now. There will definitely be some cool things to learn when it comes out.


Also my memory might be off but I'm pretty sure that's the jist of what happened

If thats what happened to Talos, it looks like they wiped the slate clean before tiber arrived so they must have something special planned.

Lore and cannon are, before anything else, subject to change at their creators' whims anyway.

I have noticed for a long time myself that TES lore is indeed rather shallow. Even poor, but only compared to lore drafted by people who made it their life's legacy (I'm basically only talking about Tolkien, and even his lore had gaps and holes, as even a passing read of The Silmarillion will reveal).

Also, it was my understanding, as stated by the dev.s (probably Todd) about the time Oblivion was coming out, that, for the greatest part, each game was an individual, more of a spiritual successor than a sequel. Any similarities in lore are probably more convenient than intentionally functional, for better or worse, and really don't need to be taken any more seriously than such.

That line was blurred a bit by Oblivion, mentioning the Nerevarine and whatnot. But my contempt for that game is enough to make me want to ignore it and any and all of its implications to established TES lore, anyway.

Where to draw the line on being loyal to established lore gets blurred fast enough anyway. Mages hate necromancy, right? I've read way too much bickering about the nature of necromancy. It was my understanding that simple conjuration spells, the entire School, in fact, was of 'necromancy.' Yet the guild in Chorrol specialized in Conjuration.
In Morrowind, mages didn't like necromancy as I recall, and, true to form, Conjuration was not included in the Mage's Guild requisite Skills.
So in establishing lore, it gets pretty blurry in individual games, much less considering across several games.

Where does dual-wielding fit into the lore? Has it ever been described in any book in-game? So would a TES-lore loyalist vote to nix it? If we went to Highrock again, would there be topless which covens hanging around? It's in the lore. A lot of people on these forums want inter-species relationships, and half-breed children. Besides the example of the former in failblivion, has that ever been established in lore? But many of you still want the latter.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore lol. I guess, what I'm trying to say is, bottom line, the lore is going to change as the consumers see fit. And it is, coincidentally 'light' or 'vague' in kind terms, or 'shallow' or 'weak' in less-kind terms, probably, to suit that end, if we don't want to call it laziness on the writers' behalf. And, regardless, isn't even a big deal.

Will Skyrim be faithful to lore? They've added a completely foreign combat method, removed an entire, and AFAIK, the first School of Magic. Yet they've also included 90% of established TES mainstays.

I guess the trick is, "define 'faithful'"

As to the necromancer lore, I think it's how you use conjuration not just the fact that you use it. Like necromancers would use it to raise the dead or ru gets on them and they also use mysticism to fill their black soul gems with the soul of humans

Yes Conjuration might be related but it's used differently.
You summon (Ask for aid by lore) a creature from Oblivion for aid they will leave eventually (In game of course after time runs out or your summon dies) Long term summons are more rare but have happened.
Now Necromancers raise the dead -- i.e. Steal corpses from Tombs which we all know in Morrowind (and everywhere else) is a big no no. If you read some of the books on Necromancy they will also resort to other means i.e. Murder to get the fresh corpses they need either by random killing or by buying Argonian and Khajiit slaves. Even a Daedric Prince frowns upon the undead and the Art of Necromancy. Necromancers also delve into darker magic and aforementioned murdering which violates the laws of magic (Mage's Guild) Not even mentioning Galerion's beef with Mannimarco but that's old news. As Dovakiin mentioned earlier I think using Black Soul gems is illegal (My mind is fuzzy on that if it is indeed a law). I am also pretty sure Lichification isn't Ok either but That's just an opinion.

The school of necromancy would be a pretty poor school if it was restricted to a few spells from a couple of other schools though, dont you think ?

Besides, schools are vanus, mannimarco predates the schools of magic so they would be completely different, a little like dragon shouts are different I would say.

Just because Mannimarco predated the schools of magic doesn't mean they didn't have problems if you go that route Galerion predated them too. Point is Mannimarco has always hated the Mage's Guild even before the ban on Necromancy. I mean what's a more better excuse to destroy your old rival's work than the ban of Necromancy. It's a perfect cover. Sure he hated the Mage's Guild even more for the ban but he hated the Mage's Guild and Galerion before that. Traven unfortunately was Arch-mage at the wrong time. (God rest his soul )

I wonder if the Hsaarik Head is included in Skyrim. Perhaps it is broken, but will have a landmark?

Well, there are a lot of shades of depth between deep and shallow. Most of us can agree to that. What Skyrim must tell us in lore: what happened to the Empire? Is everything in the Infernal Book true? How is Morrowind doing?

Also, how is the Wild Hunt going. Do the Bosmer change into beasts soon?

Exactly. Tolkien was able to build his books and lore without having to worry about how you would experience it the books were the lore in themselves and even he had to tinker with The Hobbit to fit The Lord of the Rings.

For Bethesda they must balance the lore with their current design objectives, following the lore perfectly could back them into a corner as far as introducing new gameplay elements.

In the same sense it helps them hide technical short comings. Arch-Mage Traven was firmly against necromancy so they opted to avoid it. Crafting a the core gameplay required for true necromancy I feel would have been taxing on the available resources and ultimately not worth the pay-off. By making it Arch-Mage Traven's personal dislike for necromancy Bethesda didn't rule it out from future elder scrolls, but allowed it to be a part of Oblivion and didn't avoid the subject completely.