Falmer/Forsworn vs Troll Kingdoms

Team 1 army

Madanach Forsworn Forces

Knight-Paladin Gelebor Falmer Forces

Team 2 army

Zalas Witherbark Witherbark tribe Forces

Gan'zulah Bloodscalp Tribe Forces

Rules

• No In fighting
• No BFR
• Win by destroying the otherside
• Both are bloodlusted
• Standard gear for both sides
• Both have their own leadership under them
• No prep
• Random Encounter
• No outside interference

Environment - one starts on one side of the city, the other starts on the other side of the city

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/united-horde-vs-united-skaven-clans-1895616/

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/battles-7/beastmenorcslizardmen-vs-orcsdemonsdaedric-1892696/

People whom might be interested

@killerwasp: @savageslayer: @mightythunderbird:@penderor:@eisenfauste: @pern: @thenaughtytitan: @kingant27: :

@boringperson:@lettsplay10:@citizensentry:@merulezall:

@baztet:@jwwprod@detrolord@harbingerofmomz@dedmanwalkin@vortex14@traskindustries@tularianroman@sirfizzwhizz@reikai@wut@merulezall@monsterstomp@alessandro_souzamarques@zaied@cpt_nice@rpgesus@ghostrider2@dygoboy@mkgod@fallingcliffs@pipxeroth@dragnaar@swagpack@warlordeternal@redzkz@decaf_wizard@tparks@blackestnight93@jardinain2:@dagit@wewlad80@ussj3071@aotd@bastets

Hmm, I wanna say team two. But I'm not positive.

@jardinain2: You think it'd be a close fight?

Team 2

Eh team 1!!

Team 1 in a stomp due to Magic. The elder scrolls forces are sturdier stock in general as well imo.

Team 1

Team 2.

@merulezall said:

20,000 Briarhearts... what kind of magical power does the other side have to contend with the absolute nonsense these guys will be producing?

@i_like_swords: simple troll magic alone can use lightning to where they can instant kill people with it. Example down below in this trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJr3dXZfcg

Other advanced troll magic include healing in massive aoe groups with via healing wave or healing wards. They can also cause troops to go completely bloodlust even bloodlusting themselves with their own minor magic. Trolls can also use hex and so on upon their foes as well. This isn't all of the trollish magical arts, just some I mean there really is tons of magic they can use and wield and judging from what he gave this gives them a range of abilities to caste upon their foes.

Team 1, cause Chaurus are hell to deal with. *remembers dying again and again* ugh

@merulezall: Sounds fairly similar to ES magic then.

Team one wins.

I'm not sure the Falmer have an answer to berserkers

@i_like_swords: Indeed, I'd say that WoW magic users though seemed on avg a little more powerful, where as I feel the more powerful ESO magic wielders are a little more powerful besides certain characters for both fantasies.

What makes you say that? I mean a novice mage in Skyrim is capable of accidentally turning people into cows, the average mage is capable of producing fireballs and teleporting, and a measly enchanted ring can burn down an entire forest in the ring hands. And yeah, incineration/vaporisation is pretty typical too.

@i_like_swords: Same mages can do the same

Sheep

Bring friends back alive

Enchanting themselves with spells

aoe burning spell across wetlands

Another type of AoE attack

These are just again some basics done by avg joe people, however like I said there's a huge list and basically anything you can think of they have done it and more. The heavier hitters well shake the world basically.

@merulezall: Talking about the Forsworn specifically now, though, I'll highlight some things which prop them up above average mages, and then explain in more detail what ES magic involves.

The Forsworn have three/four advantages over normal mages, namely:

• They are almost entirely Bretons, meaning they all have an inherent talent for spellcraft the other human races lack
• Forsworn culture partially revolves around Daedra worship and receiving power from Daedra
• Forsworn receive magical enhancements from Hagravens and Witches, which would likely include special enchantments and battle enhancing spells
• Briarhearts, in particular, have their hearts replaced with briar seeds, which better attune them to the natural forces of the world, making them substantially stronger

Also, a famous example of the Hagraven's magic is the legend of Red Eagle: a Hagraven enhanced the warrior talents of a single warrior, and gave him a unique flaming sword, and using his newfound power, he killed one thousand soldiers single handed and routed the rest of the army.

The cowl was thrown back in the dim light, and she revealed herself to be one the ancient and venerable Hagravens. She offered power, for a price, and a pact was made.

Thus was brokered to the witch: his heart, his will, his humanity. From that day forth, his was a spirit of vengeance, pitiless and beyond remorse. The rebels grew in strength and numbers, and none could stand against them. Faolan's eyes burned coldly in those days, black opals reflecting a mind not entirely his own. Two years passed, and the foreigners were all but driven from the Reach.

Such peace could not last, however, and a great host fell upon them, a swift army of invaders unlike any before. For a fortnight, Hestra's generals laid siege to Red Eagle's stronghold, till he himself came forth for battle, alone and robed in nothing but his righteous fury. A thousand foreigners fell before his flaming sword, and the enemy was routed. Yet, when night fell, so too did he. The warriors who came to him said Faolan's eyes were clear again on that final night.

https://www.imperial-library.info/content/legend-red-eagle

This guy is somewhat exceptional, but in a battle of unprecedented proportions like this, I imagine the Forsworn would be willing to make plenty of exceptions.

As for protection, in general:

• Alteration flesh spells to make the mages' skin as tough as plate armour
• Cloaks of lightning to turn aside arrows and physical attacks
• Invisibility
• Spells to dispel, reflect of absorb offensive spells
• Casting wards which are impervious to arrows as well as magic
• Casting all of the protective spells mentioned earlier on other people during or ahead of battle
• Healers who can close wounds immediately

As for utility:

• Again, invisibility is fairly common
• Levitation
• Breathing under water
• Casual teleportation whether it be via Illusion magic or Storm magic
• Amplify the power of weapons and personal physical stats (in particular, there are some ridiculous physical stats to be gained from fortify spells, talking about casually lifting buildings or throwing human-sized rocks, speedblitzing incredibly fast characters, etc)
• Amplify the energy and talents of allies on an army-scale
• Can summon massive magical beasts from Oblivion or resurrect the dead to fight again

As for straight up offence:

• Destruction magic entails not just direct assaults, but casting runes (essentially delayed mines), creating walls of an element, etc, it's very versatile
• With frost magic, freezing an opponent solid is common, and the frost inherently weakens the stamina of warriors
• With storm magic, one can teleport, and in general is very flexible in how it can be used against an enemy target
• Alteration can be used to destroy weapons and armour, disintegrating them
• Alteration can also be used for telekinesis, whether distorting the local environment or specific targets
• Alteration can be used to distort the five senses of the target, or straight up turn them into something different, like a sweet roll
• With Illusion, you can distort the mind of an enemy target, making them flee in fear, go into a frenzy, becoming calm, and so on, this is limited only by the caster's imagination. You can make them see what you want them to see, and this works on the scale of armies as well.
• There are a wide variety of spells designed to weaken enemy targets; even lowly mages can make their opponents feel nauseous
• Vampiric spells, not necessarily talking about vampires, refer to the ability to siphon the strength of the enemy and pass it onto your own army

In terms of scale of destruction being caused, we can be looking at anything from:

• Individuals causing city wall - village level damage, or army busting damage
• Individuals shaking mountains or casting army-wiping death spells
• Armies throwing mountains
• Islands/continents being sunk

Considering the stupidly unprecedented number of mages present here - 20,000 Briarhearts alone is unheard of, never mind all the other supporting mages - what I've listed above should be expected. If not because the Forsworn may have produced a few remarkably powerful mages themselves, then just because of the sheer numbers.

@i_like_swords: It's going to be a bit going to have to open up the books and begin the quotes.

Isn't a reliable feat.

The Legend of Red Eagle

by

Tredayn Dren

Archivist of Winterhold

This tale was transcribed from the memory of Clarisse Vien, student of Winterhold. Elements of the legend suggest a date c.1E 1030, though as with any oral tradition, much of it is likely a later anachronism. Curiously, stories of a similar king and his legendary blade appear in other ancient myths of the Reach.

First off, its a Legend. This is not a third person view of this as it happens and so we would know, for a fact, it happened as thus. It is a legend, would be like debating an English Knight's skills based on the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

Secondly, to make it worse, it was a story passed through oral tradition. Meaning, your grandfather told you the story his grandfather told him. Ever play the telephone game? Yeah. Fun how crazy that words become, right? This makes it so unreliable that it is a bit silly to even attempt to use it as a means of evidence outside of its own work.

Finally, its plagued with anachronism which implies large sections and parts are inspired by different time and cultures which shouldn't be around at the time this story would have been further reinforcing it having changed, again, telephone game.

Now, it is in different myths, which implies there is a kernel of truth in it, as there tends to be in most legends, however, the sheer amount of just 'dubious' it has in it means trying to use any of this as a legitimate hagraven 'boosting' feat is straight silly as how much of the story is true, how much is exaggeration is all called into question. Unreliable narrator is unreliable.

@wut:

First off, its a Legend. This is not a third person view of this as it happens and so we would know, for a fact, it happened as thus. It is a legend, would be like debating an English Knight's skills based on the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

The world of Elder Scrolls exists under the same rules as the legends of King Arthur, not real-world England. Criticising a world where legends unfold before our very eyes, for it's legends being unreliable, doesn't make any sense.

Elder Scrolls:

• Has no objective reality
• Can have it's timeline altered at any time, past, present and future, by the Gods themselves
• Has it's entire story told to us from the viewpoint of NPCs and the books they write; there is no "reliable narrator" as you mentioned
• Anyone's interpretation of the lore is equally valid, because you are an NPC in the game, and the NPC's world view is shaped by their experiences, the books and legends they compose are shaped by their experiences
• That is to say, over 3000 lorebooks weren't written so we could ignore them, funnily enough

“Elder Scrolls is different from most fantasy campaign worlds, right? I mean, the typical paradigm, you know - George RR Martin with Westeros, Tolkien with Middle Earth, the familiar D&D worlds of The Forgotten Realms or the world of Greyhawk - those all have histories and backgrounds that are all laid out and they’ve all got some lore-daddy who decided everything and everything is ‘this is how it is’, so everything works within the envelope of things that are already decided.

“Elder Scrolls - Tamriel - does not follow that paradigm. In Elder Scrolls, all lore is delivered not from on high by revelation, but from people who live their lives in the game, in the world of the game, and based on their beliefs. So that does two things for us: It means the lore always carries not just information about what the person is talking about, but also information about the person and their culture. Because the way the lore is delivered tells you how they believe things actually work in the world.

“What this means, of course, is that people have different viewpoints - these viewpoints sometimes contradict each other, and so sometimes we have players saying “alright, this person believes that, and that person believes this other thing, but which one’s the real thing?” Well... it’s not a world like ours. In a world like ours, where you can sort of trust in science and say “well yes, people have different beliefs but I know there is an objective reality.” This is a world of myth. This is a world where reality is actually changeable, where the Divines can change not only what happens going forward, but what has happened in the past. So, you know, the idea there is an objective reality behind all these different people’s opinions is not necessarily the case in the world of Tamriel. So listen to what all these different people have to say, make up your own mind, make up your own beliefs about what happened and you’re as liable - since you’re playing in their world and you’re playing a character in their world - what you think happened is as legitimate as what that NPC thinks.”

-Elder Scrolls Loremaster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0_q6cfhsE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h4m12s

Secondly, to make it worse, it was a story passed through oral tradition. Meaning, your grandfather told you the story his grandfather told him. Ever play the telephone game? Yeah. Fun how crazy that words become, right? This makes it so unreliable that it is a bit silly to even attempt to use it as a means of evidence outside of its own work.

Have you got a point to make? Why does it matter if it's passed down by oral tradition? That doesn't make the account unreliable by itself.

Finally, its plagued with anachronism which implies large sections and parts are inspired by different time and cultures which shouldn't be around at the time this story would have been further reinforcing it having changed, again, telephone game.

No, the opinion of the author is that much of it is "likely a later anachronism." That's his opinion.

Now, it is in different myths, which implies there is a kernel of truth in it, as there tends to be in most legends, however, the sheer amount of just 'dubious' it has in it means trying to use any of this as a legitimate hagraven 'boosting' feat is straight silly as how much of the story is true, how much is exaggeration is all called into question. Unreliable narrator is unreliable.

Can you even prove it's exaggerated? You meet the Red Eagle himself in Skyrim, flaming sword and all, and you wake him up by going through exactly the same process described in the legend: returning his sword to him.

He was taken to the place prepared for him, a tomb hidden deep within the rock. With his remaining strength he presented his sword to his people, and swore an oath: Fight on, and when at last the Reach is free, his blade should be returned, that he might rise and lead them again.

Thus was given for his people: his life, his dream, his sword. But when every debt is repaid in blood, these he shall reclaim once more.

https://www.imperial-library.info/content/legend-red-eagle

You are aware we are living in a literal "world of myth" where a dragon capable of destroying the universe was sent forward through a rip in time to be defeated by a prophetic being, who's actions and other major historical events were accurately predicted thousands of years before said events even took place, and there was also a part where a giant magical ball capable of destroying the world was teleported out of sight by a group of secretive magical monks who can stop time, and are famous for making their entire continent disappear and re-appear in different locations for hundreds of years at a time?

All of those things happened, but you can't suspend your disbelief past a dude army-busting? Anyway, I'm not even slightly interested in doing the canon wars thing. If you can't accept the lore unless it's a third-person experience of the event, that's fine, but nobody else is beholden to your viewpoint. So you may respond to this post, then I'm going to carry on using it as a feat, because there's nothing to contradict it's validity.

@i_like_swordsThe world of Elder Scrolls exists under the same rules as the legends of King Arthur, not real-world England. Criticising a world where legends unfold before our very eyes, for it's legends being unreliable, doesn't make any sense.

That isn't how it works. Saying, 'Oh, its a fictional world, therefor, any legends that are LEGENDS INSIDE THIS WORLD and are even pointed out by the in-universe character that I am reference, are therefor, totally okay to take as fact.' is nothow it works. It isn't how anyof this works.

If Character A can cast magic, and you have evidence of him doing so, okay. If character C says he heard from character B that character Z can shake the foundations of the world! Because that is what his grandfather told him, then you do not get to give character z that feat. Because that is how unreliable narrator works. You don't get to take something that is clearly pointed out to be a legend passed by word of mouth as fact.

The fact you think this is a fictional world means you don't have to use logic or debate properly worries me.

Elder Scrolls:

• Has no objective reality
• Can have it's timeline altered at any time, past, present and future, by the Gods themselves
• Has it's entire story told to us from the viewpoint of NPCs and the books they write; there is no "reliable narrator" as you mentioned
• Anyone's interpretation of the lore is equally valid, because you are an NPC in the game, and the NPC's world view is shaped by their experiences, the books and legends they compose are shaped by their experiences
• That is to say, over 3000 lorebooks weren't written so we could ignore them, funnily enough

Yes, it has an objective reality. The world you play in as an NPC? Is that reality. What you don't get to do is look at it and go, 'Lawls, I can do whatever I want because fiction and therefor I don't have to use logic because it doesn't suit my argument.'

The fact that the writers, or the 'Gods', can change whatever they want in their setting has no bearings on you being able to debate dishonestly.

Lol are you serious right now? Are you trying to say, 'This legend that is a legend inside this game, that is clearly a legend, that the in-character author even says its a legend and says it was passed orally meaning any truth in it is dubious, is okay because I, as the person posting this, decide to interpret it as valid.' Are you real? That is like saying, 'They once believed the world was flat, I choose to interpret that as fact despite knowing that is obviously not so.' You don't get to pull an ostrich.

No, what you need to do is look at the lorebooks critically. Not parade it as fact, in universe fact when it isn't even by in-universe standards, just because it fits your current debate and desires. The lorebooks are there to build the world, to add flavor to the universe you are enjoying. However, this example was clearly meant to reference a legend, to build that ground point that, hey, these guys are a lot like us in the real world, having bigger then life legends and legendary swords and passed the stories on orally.

“Elder Scrolls is different from most fantasy campaign worlds, right? I mean, the typical paradigm, you know - George RR Martin with Westeros, Tolkien with Middle Earth, the familiar D&D worlds of The Forgotten Realms or the world of Greyhawk - those all have histories and backgrounds that are all laid out and they’ve all got some lore-daddy who decided everything and everything is ‘this is how it is’, so everything works within the envelope of things that are already decided.

“Elder Scrolls - Tamriel - does not follow that paradigm. In Elder Scrolls, all lore is delivered not from on high by revelation, but from people who live their lives in the game, in the world of the game, and based on their beliefs. So that does two things for us: It means the lore always carries not just information about what the person is talking about, but also information about the person and their culture. Because the way the lore is delivered tells you how they believe things actually work in the world.

“What this means, of course, is that people have different viewpoints - these viewpoints sometimes contradict each other, and so sometimes we have players saying “alright, this person believes that, and that person believes this other thing, but which one’s the real thing?” Well... it’s not a world like ours. In a world like ours, where you can sort of trust in science and say “well yes, people have different beliefs but I know there is an objective reality.” This is a world of myth. This is a world where reality is actually changeable, where the Divines can change not only what happens going forward, but what has happened in the past. So, you know, the idea there is an objective reality behind all these different people’s opinions is not necessarily the case in the world of Tamriel. So listen to what all these different people have to say, make up your own mind, make up your own beliefs about what happened and you’re as liable - since you’re playing in their world and you’re playing a character in their world - what you think happened is as legitimate as what that NPC thinks.”-Elder Scrolls Loremaster

^ That is the best you have to validate your nonsense? Are you serious? All that is saying is what you think happened is as legitimate as what a random peasant in Hammerfall thinks. That peasant can think whatever the hell he wants to, doesn't make legend fact.

And the best part? You think this excuses you. I debate Warhammer 40k. A universe where, they tell you straight out, everything is a true and false. There is no big daddy telling you 'no this is how it is', its retcons over retcons yet, due to the status of their lore, both retcons are true. Yeah. You know what we don't get to do? Pretend that the unreliable narrator doesn't exist and pass off In Universe Legends and Myths as feats for current characters.

Have you got a point to make? Why does it matter if it's passed down by oral tradition? That doesn't make the account unreliable by itself.

Yes, it does. Someone telling you their girlfriend's brother's sister once slew the greatest bear the world has ever seen with a toothpick <--- You know what that is? Someone passing you oral history. Maybe it didn't happen. Maybe she did it with the toothpick. Maybe she shot it and it just so happened to have a toothpick in it and now the story has grown wildly inaccurate because people keep talking about it and adding stuff they think they heard.

Again, I ask you, have you ever played the telephone game? Because oral history is dubious in its nature. It has always been dubious in its nature. There are entire essays written on what you can and can't take from oral history, to keep the proper mindset when reading something taken from oral history, etc.

Or as Professor Kihlstrom from the University of California says, 'Oral history is an unreliable genre to begin with.' The best part about Oral Historians? The vast majority of time, they aren't taking in the facts of history, but how people felt and thought during that time.

You can read about it more here if you are truly interested.

No, the opinion of the author is that much of it is "likely a later anachronism." That's his opinion.

An opinion of an Archivist of Winterhold. Now, let us say your opinion is that of an NPC in skyrim, shall we? Now, you are not an Archivist, no, you would be, what? A peasant? A tradesmen? (Because, yes, lets do this because this is how you seem to want to debate), now, you say X is false. This Archivist says Y is true. Whose opinion holds more weight?

It isn't yours. That is the answer, btw. Its his.

Can you even prove it's exaggerated? You meet the Red Eagle himself in Skyrim, flaming sword and all, and you wake him up by going through exactly the same process described in the legend: returning his sword to him.

Kernel of truth. Or did you forget that portion? A man named Red Eagle existed. He had a flaming sword. The part you need to prove? Him killing a thousand people with said sword because that is not proven, that is a number given out by an unreliable narrator as a part of oral history, a type of history that constantly changes, more often growing greater and greater in exageration. This is exactly the same as when people claim Xerxes invaded with a five million man army. Was there a man named Xerxes? Yes. Did he invade Greece? Yes. Did he have a five million man army? No. (Best part is, if you go in at a higher level, he is a Dragon Priest. Not even a warrior.)

Saying, 'This book that is was finally written down after a very long period of time says there was a man with a flaming sword who killed a thousand warriors.' <--- Unreliable. But legends have truth in them.

You find the man the book said and he does have a flaming sword. Awesome. Just like Xerxes being a real man and being the leader of Persia. You know what doesn't mean? You get to claim he killed a thousand people with that sword no more then you get to claim Xerxes had a five million man army.

As for me proving a negative, ergo, something 'didn't happen', that isn't how it works, not that it is relevant here anyways, this is what is happening should you have forgotten: You are making a claim, I pointed out that your evidence is unreliable and trying to equate that to a feat for these characters is invalid. Full stop. This is not a 'Prove people can't fly!' scenario.

You are aware we are living in a literal "world of myth" where a dragon capable of destroying the universe was sent forward through a rip in time to be defeated by a prophetic being, who's actions and other major historical events were accurately predicted thousands of years before said events even took place, and there was also a part where a giant magical ball capable of destroying the world was teleported out of sight by a group of secretive magical monks who can stop time, and are famous for making their entire continent disappear and re-appear in different locations for hundreds of years at a time?

And your point is? Warhammer Fantasy is a where where Gods did destroy the universe. A world where a massive skeleton monster ate the God of Death and wiped out a continent of all life because he was being a jerk. A world where time stops working the further north you go. A world where a nation floats because magic. A world where tears in the fabric of reality exist. A world where people can solo armies exist. You know what you don't get to do? Take an in-universe legend and present it as fact especially when the person writing that in-universe legend even points to how unreliable it is.

Or as this man says:

You don't get to abandon logic just because it suits your purpose.

All of those things happened, but you can't suspend your disbelief past a dude army-busting? Anyway, I'm not even slightly interested in doing the canon wars thing. If you can't accept the lore unless it's a third-person experience of the event, that's fine, but nobody else is beholden to your viewpoint. So you may respond to this post, then I'm going to carry on using it as a feat, because there's nothing to contradict it's validity.

It isn't about suspending disbelief. It is about understanding how PROOF works. Understanding how history works. Understanding how feats and in-universe lore fits. Its not about 'canon vs non-canon'. Its about how DEBATING ITSELF works. If you can't debate with logic and integrity, don't debate at all.

@wut: Calm. Down.

That isn't how it works. Saying, 'Oh, its a fictional world, therefor, any legends that are LEGENDS INSIDE THIS WORLD and are even pointed out by the in-universe character that I am reference, are therefor, totally okay to take as fact.' is nothow it works. It isn't how anyof this works.

I didn't say because it's a fictional world. It's because, even as far as fictional worlds go, Elder Scrolls operates under unique rules. If it was a fictional universe like, say, Star Wars, I'd be falling over myself agreeing with everything you've said so far.

For the record, I also didn't mention anything about facts. I've actually gone ahead and pointed out the absence of reliable facts to begin with; it's all a matter of interpretation.

Yes, it has an objective reality.

Not according to the people who make the games...

The world you play in as an NPC? Is that reality. What you don't get to do is look at it and go, 'Lawls, I can do whatever I want because fiction and therefor I don't have to use logic because it doesn't suit my argument.'

How about instead of frothing at the mouth, you attack the logic itself, not me.

The fact that the writers, or the 'Gods', can change whatever they want in their setting has no bearings on you being able to debate dishonestly.

What are you talking about? I've merely pointed out that the chances of a legend being correct in Elder Scrolls is at least as likely as it being false or embellished, due to the nature of the setting, and that reality is constantly subject to change in of itself. Meaning, the idea that a famous legend could be true is as valid an interpretation of the material as not believing it. It's not to say I take everything I see at face value, or even necessarily have any hard and fast rules regarding the material - it's just to say that I will take a legend as it is in the absence of a serious contradiction. The Red Eagle legend was passed down by people based on their experience of the world.

No, what you need to do is look at the lorebooks critically. Not parade it as fact, in universe fact when it isn't even by in-universe standards, just because it fits your current debate and desires.

I encourage you to take a deep breath, book a yoga class, and then cease and desist with all future strawmans. I'm parading nothing around as fact; the whole point of the Elder Scrolls lore is the absence of fact. The absence of objective reality. It's a world of possibilities.

Yes, it does. Someone telling you their girlfriend's brother's sister once slew the greatest bear the world has ever seen with a toothpick <--- You know what that is? Someone passing you oral history.

No, that would be lying. I wouldn't take oral tradition seriously in a realistic setting, or even a fictional setting like Star Wars that at least has a cohesive reality, a cohesive timeline etc. But we're not discussing a realistic setting. We're discussing one where a regular dude called Tiber Septim became the chief deity of a pantheon of Gods by believing hard enough and then replaced all of the jungles in an entire country with fields by wishing it so.

An opinion of an Archivist of Winterhold. Now, let us say your opinion is that of an NPC in skyrim, shall we? Now, you are not an Archivist, no, you would be, what? A peasant? A tradesmen? (Because, yes, lets do this because this is how you seem to want to debate), now, you say X is false. This Archivist says Y is true. Whose opinion holds more weight?

It isn't yours. That is the answer, btw. Its his.

I would take the opinion of the legend seriously, as it's the original source. Thanks for comparing me to a peasant tho. Awfully grown up of you.

Kernel of truth. Or did you forget that portion? A man named Red Eagle existed. He had a flaming sword. The part you need to prove? Him killing a thousand people with said sword because that is not proven, that is a number given out by an unreliable narrator as a part of oral history, a type of history that constantly changes, more often growing greater and greater in exageration.

So you can't prove it's exaggerated? That's cool. Arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Too-da-loo.

Saying, 'This book that is was finally written down after a very long period of time says there was a man with a flaming sword who killed a thousand warriors.' <--- Unreliable. But legends have truth in them.

You find the man the book said and he does have a flaming sword. Awesome. Just like Xerxes being a real man and being the leader of Persia. You know what doesn't mean? You get to claim he killed a thousand people with that sword no more then you get to claim Xerxes had a five million man army.

You kind of do when you live in a "world of myth", homie. As in, myths and legends take place in the world. They aren't just fabrications, they are real. There are far more outlandish legends in Elder Scrolls than this one, which turned out to be 100% true.

As for me proving a negative, ergo, something 'didn't happen', that isn't how it works, not that it is relevant here anyways, this is what is happening should you have forgotten: You are making a claim, I pointed out that your evidence is unreliable and trying to equate that to a feat for these characters is invalid. Full stop. This is not a 'Prove people can't fly!' scenario.

I have evidence the event happened: a popular account is that Red Eagle killed 1,000 dudes. You want to convince me it must be a fabrication, and it must be exaggerated, and when I asked you to prove it, you spent most of the time insulting me instead of doing any proving.

And your point is? Warhammer Fantasy is a where where Gods did destroy the universe. A world where a massive skeleton monster ate the God of Death and wiped out a continent of all life because he was being a jerk. A world where time stops working the further north you go. A world where a nation floats because magic. A world where tears in the fabric of reality exist. A world where people can solo armies exist. You know what you don't get to do? Take an in-universe legend and present it as fact especially when the person writing that in-universe legend even points to how unreliable it is.

I don't really care about Warhammer Fantasy. We're talking about Elder Scrolls.

You don't get to abandon logic just because it suits your purpose.

It isn't about suspending disbelief. It is about understanding how PROOF works. Understanding how history works. Understanding how feats and in-universe lore fits. Its not about 'canon vs non-canon'. Its about how DEBATING ITSELF works. If you can't debate with logic and integrity, don't debate at all.

My purpose is my own enjoyment of the material and discussing it with others. I'm perfectly aware of how all of that works, I simply treat ES differently because it operates differently. Unfortunately for you, this is the internet, where people tend to do whatever they want. You have about as much of a chance of getting me to stop doing anything as a termite does at stopping an earthquake.

I'm no longer interested in talking to you; you clearly need some kind of therapy.

@i_like_swords: I didn't say because it's a fictional world. It's because, even as far as fictional worlds go, Elder Scrolls operates under unique rules. If it was a fictional universe like, say, Star Wars, I'd be falling over myself agreeing with everything you've said so far.

For the record, I also didn't mention anything about facts. I've actually gone ahead and pointed out the absence of reliable facts to begin with; it's all a matter of interpretation.

Just because the universe's canon isn't as clear cut as Star Wars (Most fictional canon isn't as clean cut as Star Wars... they.. take great pains to categorize) you still don't get to ignore certain assets of debating such as unreliable narrators or dubious evidence source.

However, I do thank you for mentioning that you would agree under other circumstances, makes me feel a bit better about the person I am debating with on this site, you can never be too careful with whom you run into.

Not according to the people who make the games...

They were referring it in compared to ours, however, when you look at it... it is exactly what they are trying to say it isn't.

How about instead of frothing at the mouth, you attack the logic itself, not me.

I did. In the source, you provided, they said the player, ergo you or I, has the same opinion weight as an npc of the world. Therefor, it doesn't matter if you 'believe' it to be true or not just as it doesn't matter if a hammerfall peasant 'believes' it to be true.

What are you talking about? I've merely pointed out that the chances of a legend being correct in Elder Scrolls is at least as likely as it being false or embellished, due to the nature of the setting, and that reality is constantly subject to change in of itself. Meaning, the idea that a famous legend could be true is as valid an interpretation of the material as not believing it. It's not to say I take everything I see at face value, or even necessarily have any hard and fast rules regarding the material - it's just to say that I will take a legend as it is in the absence of a serious contradiction. The Red Eagle legend was passed down by people based on their experience of the world.

And legends of our world were passed down based on experiences of the world. Odds tend to be that many figures of legends were real people, but what they did and the extent of those actions tend to be the greatest things exaggerated which is why using his actions as a feat for these characters is dubious and wrong unless the people of Elder Scrolls do not lie or exaggerate (which we know they do.)

If the thread was 'The Red Eagle, as of this novel, vs *insert person*', then yes, because you are taking that legend, in its context, and placing it against something else. That isn't what this is. It is too dubious to be used as a credible feat for these characters.

I encourage you to take a deep breath, book a yoga class, and then cease and desist with all future strawmans. I'm parading nothing around as fact; the whole point of the Elder Scrolls lore is the absence of fact. The absence of objective reality. It's a world of possibilities.

If you do not have fact of it happening. If you only know it 'may' have happened like it did but probably not, you don't get to use it as a credible fact. That is why it is dubious. Which is the problem here.

No, that would be lying. I wouldn't take oral tradition seriously in a realistic setting, or even a fictional setting like Star Wars that at least has a cohesive reality, a cohesive timeline etc. But we're not discussing a realistic setting. We're discussing one where a regular dude called Tiber Septim became the chief deity of a pantheon of Gods by believing hard enough and then replaced all of the jungles in an entire country with fields by wishing it so.

You do not know if it is a lie. You do not know if it is a truth. You do not know what parts are which. If you went on google and found out, oh, she did kill a bear. Part of it is true. But what parts aren't? Thatis the problem with oral history.

Warhammer Fantasy a regular dude called Sigmar became the chief deity of a pantheon of Gods by people believing hard enough, liked to make comets come from nowhere, threw down with another, bigger god, who liked to split planets in half and built an entire terracotta style army that he reincarnates whenever they get hurt. You still do not get to use feats that are dubious, in universe, as credible, in universe, feats. The rules do not change.

I would take the opinion of the legend seriously, as it's the original source. Thanks for comparing me to a peasant tho. Awfully grown up of you.

It isn't the original source. The original source are people telling the story to others and then it was written down ages after it happened. You are obviously not a legionnaire, are you? Odds are you have a steady job, odds favoring you being a 'peasant' or a 'tradesmen' if you are the son, or daughter, of nobility, feel free to inform me of so. I am a peasant and a tradesmen, in regards to my standings in that universe, doesn't mean I am sensitive over the fact.

So you can't prove it's exaggerated? That's cool. Arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Too-da-loo.

Once again, you are trying to move the goalpost here to a, 'You prove humans can't fly!' that isn't what this is. That isn't what this is at all. This is you saying, 'Well, the Onion said this..' And me going, 'The Onion isn't a credible source, you shouldn't be pretending it is.'

You kind of do when you live in a "world of myth", homie. As in, myths and legends take place in the world. They aren't just fabrications, they are real. There are far more outlandish legends in Elder Scrolls than this one, which turned out to be 100% true.

Doesn't mean each and everyone myth or legend is 100% true. That isn't how debating works. You don't get to say, 'Well, this legend, which is unrelated to the one we are discussing, was 100% true! Some of the other's aren't, but this one is which means this one has to be too!'

I have evidence the event happened: a popular account is that Red Eagle killed 1,000 dudes. You want to convince me it must be a fabrication, and it must be exaggerated, and when I asked you to prove it, you spent most of the time insulting me instead of doing any proving.

What? Are you ignoring the link to an article talking about Oral History and how dubious it is? Because, ONCE AGAIN, that is the crux of this. I am calling the in universe evidence you are trying to use as coming from a dubious source and, therefor, not something you can use for a credible feat. Is there something about that fact that.. escapes you? If so, tell me now. Because if you continue to have trouble understanding what it is I am pointing out, and instead spend all your day moving the goal post in an attempt to make me prove a negative, this will go nowhere.

I don't really care about Warhammer Fantasy. We're talking about Elder Scrolls.

A similar universe playing on similar rules with a similar hilarious canon policy. The rules don't change. You debate and provide evidence, credible evidence, for feats regardless of from what fictional universe they come from.

My purpose is my own enjoyment of the material and discussing it with others. I'm perfectly aware of how all of that works, I simply treat ES differently because it operates differently. Unfortunately for you, this is the internet, where people tend to do whatever they want. You have about as much of a chance of getting me to stop doing anything as a termite does at stopping an earthquake.

So, what you are saying, and from the start is, 'I know this isn't a credible source, I know that if I were trying to really prove this, I can't. But I don't want to do that. Instead, because this is the internet and I like to treat ES differently, I do what I want even if what I am saying is fundamentally false. Na-na na-na boo-boo."?

Because that is hilarious.

I'm no longer interested in talking to you; you clearly need some kind of therapy.

Uh huh, have fun with that na-na na-na boo-boo.

@merulezall Make sure you read every feat he post in its entirety.

@wut:

So, what you are saying, and from the start is, 'I know this isn't a credible source, I know that if I were trying to really prove this, I can't. But I don't want to do that. Instead, because this is the internet and I like to treat ES differently, I do what I want even if what I am saying is fundamentally false. Na-na na-na boo-boo."?

Because that is hilarious.

I'm asking you to do what the Elder Scrolls universe is asking us to do; humour the possibility that it happened, then talk about it. Or don't. It's up to you. I'm choosing to humour the possibility.

If you really think that is the equivalent of me autistically screeching with my fingers in my ears, then I don't think you really know much about who I am. You've just presented yourself as a petulant child with a bigger mouth than a brain, really. But as I said before, people do what they want on the internet. So luckily for you, you get to conduct yourself like a total asshole, and there are zero repercussions for it. What a time to be alive, huh sport?

@i_like_swords: For someone that says he isn't going to respond, you sure respond a lot.

I'm asking you to do what the Elder Scrolls universe is asking us to do; humour the possibility that it happened, then talk about it. Or don't. It's up to you. I'm choosing to humour the possibility.

If you said, 'Hey, this happened, I don't know if it is true or not, but it does deserve some pondering.'.

Okay. That is fine. You didn't say that. You used it as a feat in a debate not involving that person or that story directly (Ergo, using King Arthur to debate a English Knight).

If you want to talk to me about it and be say, 'Do you, personally, feel like it could have happened? Because it sounds awesome.' Then okay. I'd be happy to do that with you. But I will not, regardless of that conversation, use it as a credible feat in a debate.

If you really think that is the equivalent of me autistically screeching with my fingers in my ears, then I don't think you really know much about who I am. You've just presented yourself as a petulant child with a bigger mouth than a brain, really. But as I said before, people do what they want on the internet. So luckily for you, you get to conduct yourself like a total asshole, and there are zero repercussions for it. What a time to be alive, huh sport?

See the above. If you wanted to discuss this and how 'awesome it was if it happened, do you think it happened?' Sure. I'll do that with you. But that is a topic of conversation for another thread. What my problem is is that you used it as a credible feat. As if it was truth instead of something to talk about the possibility of it being true.

@wut: I'm so lost, but no worries gents I'm gonna re-read some WC novels to give a good scope of how the Trolls magic is fairly good despite their being better magics in that universe.

Troll Kingdom should win.