User blog comment:Pelinal Whitestrake/About Aka, Lorkhan and broken Windows/@comment-11345660-20140209010228/@comment-11345660-20140216052039

Well said Dovasbrom. You would be angry to hear that it doesn't matter. Seriously, I support the theory. Really, I do. You just don't have solid evidence. But if you really want to continue...

Ok, we are going in circles with this Tsun and Zenithar thing. I am saying they cannot be shards because they are not similar in any way, and you say that because they are, this dissproves that theory. Your argument for that honestly makes no sense. You are basically just saying you're right, and I'm wrong. We are just going back and forth. So I think we should just drop this particular argument. You arn't going to convince me otherwise.

Forgive me, I have never played Daggerfall and do not know the full extent of the Dragon Break. Someone told me it changed events in the past as well as the endings of the game, so that's my bad.

How is asking exactly why they seperated from themselves not an important question? It's the most important question there is, and it is relevant to our argument because it's the CAUSE of this whole thing you're going on about! How can that not be important. Like I said, if we figure out a reason why, we can determine how. You don't "Know" it happened, you "believe" it happened. As before, when you present solid proof, then we will "know." And you say they love to self reflect. Key word here is "reflect." I know I want us to drop it, but going back to Tsun and Zenithar, what do you see in a reflection of a mirror when you look into it? Do you see another person? Or do you see you? Even if you dressed up in a disguise, it is still you, the details are just different. I think the same applies with the Aedra. If they self-reflect, traits of theirs are still going to be carried over if your shard theory is correct. Traits they will exhibit. Personality, causes. There is nothing in common between what we know of Tsun and Zenithar. So I can only conclude that they are not connected in any way. Plus, in that Sithis passage you have, how do you get physically breaking into shards with just the phrase "seperate from each other." That could mean a number of things. It could mean the Aedra just didn't like each other and secluded themselves. It's a pretty radical jump from that to them physically breaking into different personalities.

I can see the lines you draw connecting the dots from the Tales of Wuulfarth and the Monomyth, but it still could very well be two seperate tales. There are similarities to be sure, but you can sometimes come across similarities in tales you find. Example: King Arthur pulled a sword from a stone. Legend of Zelda, Link pulled a sword from a stone. Are they the same thing? It might be a dumb example, but I think you get my point. Cultures have different and similar tales. It could literally be Shor versus Alduin, and the tales of Lorkhan and Akatosh are completely seperate. And I noticed something with that passage in the monomyth. "And the men dragged his body away." I thought that the remnants of Lorkhan's body was Nirn itself. How do men drag away an entire planet? (Sorry, I'm just nitpicking).

I thought Time began when Akatosh was born. Who is to say "normal time" began with the ending of the convention. And it's not that much of a coincedence to me anyway. I don't see how it furthers your argument.

You're missing the point when I say we need more information on Sheor. Your description is not very accurate anyway. Different cultures in the Elder Scrolls universe all have their own version of Lorkhan and they either villify him or glorify him. Just because one culture views him as a god of strife does not make prove you right. Same god, different names, and differing views about him. It's really not that complicated when you're in the thick of it. Shezzar and Lorkhan are very much the same in most respects, just differing views of the host culture.

I realize the Monomyth is probably one of the more credible sources in the Elder Scrolls world, but it is still no different than any other book that provides its views on the pantheons on Nirn. It can't be proven, and therefore should be used for evidence, not actual proof. I take it lightly. I realize people would have nothing to go on if no one believed any of the books, but that's science for you. Unless the facts are proven, I cannot fully believe it, even if it does sound reasonable. Plus, not knowing is half the fun.

Mortals are the proof. Sure. Have you ever heard of the word "descendant?" Let's run down the list of quotes here.

"He outlined a plan to create a soul for the Aurbis, a place where the aspects of aspects might even be allowed to self-reflect."

"So they created the Mundus, where their own aspects might live,"

"But this was a trick. As Lorkhan knew, this world contained more limitations than not and was therefore hardly a thing of Anu at all. Mundus was the House of Sithis. As their aspects began to die off, many of the et'Ada vanished completely."

"Each generation was weaker than the last, and soon there were Aldmer."

-The Monomyth

All taken from again, A BOOK THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN BE RIGHT, but I digress. Ok, what do we got? I can see where you would get the idea the Aedra created aspects of themselves, but the idea could be metaphorical just as literal. You know how confusing some translations of the story can get, you're not unintelligent. A reflection of yourself can be seen as an offspring exhibiting the behavior it inherited from the parent. An aspect, if you will. As the Et'Ada had more and more descendants, each generation lost more and more of its immortality, and much of their power was lost, as well as things were constantly changing, like the Monomyth says, hardly a thing of Anu, eventually killing the ones who were immortal and Anuic from the start, while letting the children that had been born by change, which is Sithis's domain,  the Et'Ada's descendants, live. Simple.

Yes, I do consider this lore. True lore? Remains to be seen.

Alright, alright, I admit, you are right in saying that the Daedra had only ever changed the mortal races rather than creating them, something in which the Et'Ada had a hand in making. Good, I can agree with this, and I see what you are trying to say when it comes to mortals not being able to change them because they are not directly created by them. Cool. One thing still bothers me though. I just can't buy the fact that mortals could hold power over their ancestors just by believing in different stuff. How would you explain this? Yeah, you got your "Aspect" talk, but in your own words, how do you think this happens? Legitimate question, not trying to make an argument.

Ok, legit, I did not know that about the other races being also descended from Et'Ada, but then again, it was from an unproven source, so we'll see who is right or not.

Alright, I get the idea with the whole change thing, so you get a point for that one. Clap clap clap. Round of applause. What would you say Argonians are from though?

Look, were not any closer to finding out what is truth and what is not, and we never will unless it is shown right in front of us. Let's hope it happens, or these debates of ours are completely for naught. Good day.