Lore talk:Vivec

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Non-Canon Material - Hogithum Hall[edit]

Temple Zero, will you please stop adding non-canon material to the site? Even TIL describes the Hogithum Hall roleplay as non-canon, and there's no reference to it being cut from the PGE for reasons of length. If you have a reference that proves your point, please include it. Otherwise, as I say, stop posting material that is not official. The point about rumours of him going missing in Oblivion, however, is entirely relevant. If you read our Style Guide, especially the section on perspective, you will see that within the Lore (formerly Tamriel) namespace we are supposed to "write from the perspective of a person living within the Elder Scrolls universe", so the existence of rumours on the subject are definitely worth including. –RpehTCE 10:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and the pocket guide to the empire was written by a person with "the perspective of a person living within the Elder Scrolls universe." The definition of canon is pedantry about binary code and copyright law, nothing about lore. If the Census of Daedra Lords had not been cut for length, and the Hogithum Reference was in fact in the PGE, what would you call it then? There is no canon and non-canon in the study of lore, only knowledge. Quibbles and arbitrary rules don't belong. Other admins seem to regard unofficial or offhand statements by devs as sufficient rationale for drawing conclusions.
I say the edit should stay, because I was forthright in describing the validity of the source. I did not cite it as true or make any claims, but added to the pool of knowledge because everything deserves a place on the table. You lose nothing with its inclusion (add any disclaimer you like) but you are more ignorant for its deletion. After all, there is no way that fan interpretations on lore can be given a holy status on the site while an author describing (I can't emphasize this enough) THEIR OWN work is belittled because the media format was html instead of a CS Miscellaneous Item. Perhaps you should reference the statement or convention that claims non-canon material is irrelevant and stigmatized, and that in a lore universe that is based on uncertainty, it cannot be included because its validity is uncertain. The Oblivion rumors are just that- rumors. It is laughable that you are putting hearsay (and that's what rumors are) before history. As I recall, most of the rumors about lore in Oblivion are jokes. Levitation Act, my ass.
And what do you mean there is no reference about it being cut for length? You mean you haven't found one, so I must be hallucinating? Watch your words.Temple-Zero 10:40, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I think in part this comes down to different definitions of "canon". We've tended to focus on what actually appeared in the game. This is different from TIL's definition, but I don't think that different definitions of "canon" on different sites is a bad thing. TIL and UESP already have clearly different emphases; why not extend that into discussions of the lore and allow readers to get different perspectives from TIL articles versus UESP articles? Since we have two different Elder Scrolls sites, why not allow the articles on the sites to be different instead of aiming for identical content? But in any case, this is a far broader issue than just this one article on Vivec. We probably need to have a community-wide discussion about exactly what we want to do on UESP regarding all of the various pieces of lore and lore-related information that have appeared in sources other than the published version of the game. --NepheleTalk 10:55, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I second the call for a clarification and community-wide discussion. There is definitely a need, or else we run into this on almost any Lore page, see Black Wind's article sourcing in Lore:House Dres and its talk page. Zero, could you find the link where it says the PGE was cut short for length, rpeh shouldn't have to hunt for it. I learned the hard way that including a source in the first place saves time defending the edit and a lot of aggravation that is not needed in the flow of things. I'll save my argument for pro/con inclusion of non-game material for the community discussion. --BenouldTC 11:39, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
TZ, I said there was no reference on TIL, not that there wasn't one anywhere. But as Benould says - if you have a reference then please post it here so we can take it from there. If the material was indeed cut from the PGE I'd be in favour of it appearing on the site - perhaps as an appendix of the PGE that Benould is adding - and linking from this article. Without that, it seems to be a simple bit of fun from the devs, given that Vivec almost expects death at the hands of the Neraverine come the end of Tribunal - an event that would preclude his appearance at a trial afterwards. –RpehTCE 12:19, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Well that's a bit more helpful. TIL does indeed say that the Census was cut from the PGE (idiotically, what with the twenty pages they spent on huge birthsign drawings), and I can only assume that the information was passed on from Michael Kirkbride's OP on the forums. He's the most vocal of the devs, and the only reason I don't edit some articles to reflect the mysteries he's revealed is because it feels like 'lore spoilers.' I hesitate to call the Trial a 'bit of fun.' Instead I regard it as the end of an era. I will go so far as to call Vivec MK's character. He is entitled to write the grand finale on the story of his character and some say, alter-ego. He invited all the other devs to celebrate the closing of the 'Videogame Book' that is Morrowind and the completion of the circle of betrayal regarding Almsivi, Nerevar, and Azura. (I need not point out that Vivec is not considered 'dead' any more than the Telvanni councilors you may gave assassinated. If he killed him pre-MQ then he just came back to life. If you killed him post-MQ he may have been sitting in the Tower of the universe and impregnable anyhow. You can only say what your character did, not what the full effects were.)
And now that UESP's articles are split up, it is a perfect time for a conversation on canon, or specifically, how meaningless it is. Lore oppresses and affects no characters in an unwelcome way, because it is at a remove from the videogame itself. In the aptly-renamed Lore section of the site I think we can stray away from the game-centric focus of the Oblivion and Morrowind articles. You can look at them as games, and UESP covers this viewpoint exhaustively, or you can view them as videogame books, specifically art, a set of ideas. I think we should create a prod flag for the lore section, noting where the article shifts to include things that are maybe not 100% verified, but represent the kind of non-empirical understanding crucial to putting it all together.Temple-Zero 18:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
So not content with making stuff up on the forums your starting to make stuff up on uesp. TIL only says that the Census was cut from the PGE if you add the words "the Census was cut from the PGE". What it actually says is that the two are contemporary, which means they were around at the same time. You do this all the time. You come up with allsorts of wild theories and then flame anyone who disagrees.
I see your also continueing your habit of saying different things in different places. Here you say you don't like the word "lore" but above, you say this section is "aptly-renamed". Seriosly you annoy enough people on the forums without annoying people here too. — Unsigned comment by Antares (talkcontribs) on 1 August 2008
Antares, whatever your experiences on the forums, please do not bring them up here. There's enough bad feeling on this site at the moment without old animosities being added. –RpehTCE 07:59, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually, TIL does say that the Census was cut from the PGE :
Descriptions of some of the realms of the Daedric Princes. This document by Michael Kirkbride was originally meant to be included in the Pocket Guide to the Empire, Third Edition included with the Collector's Edition of TES IV: Oblivion but was cut for length.
This is still a mute point though. Since it never made it into the game it is not really canon.
Deciding what is canon and what is not is very difficult. If you want to say that Mk's texts are canon, does that make the other dev's texts also canon? If the Trial of Vivec is canon, does that also mean that Divayth Fyr is an advisor for the Elder Council, that Caius Coscades is in Kragenmoor, or that Boethiah once said: "Divide ye like your enemies, in Houses, and lay your laws in set sequence from the center, again like the enemy Corners of the House of Troubles, and see yourself thence as timber, or mud-slats, or sheets of resin. Then do not divide, for yet is the stride of Sithis quicker than the rush of enemies, and He will sunder the whole for the sake of a shingle."
The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Trial of Vivec was an RP. Does this make certain facts from the RP's where the dev Tedders played a role also canon? Is the fact that Helseth married Dres Vedama also canon?
And what of the various lore articles written by the fans? What should we do with them? Should we label them as useful articles or just simple fan fiction, like Blackwinds Dres Article?
Apophis2412 07:39, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

() Yes, I finally found it. But MK's original note on the article itself doesn't say that at all. In any case, you sum up my feelings on the subject almost perfectly: it's not official until there's official word from Bethesda. That means books, speeches and other materials from any of the games are fair game; anything that Bethesda have clarified is fine; official posts on their website are fine. Anything beyond that is hearsay. If we start including it, we're just begging to be deluged with fanfiction and opinions rather than facts. –RpehTCE 07:59, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Who the heck are you, Antares? Thanks for a laugh, whoever you may be.
It's very simple. When the topic is lore, there is no videogame and there is no real world. In that real world, however: Authors write fiction. The company hires the authors. The company sells the fiction to the fans. The fans do not write fiction. The company does not write fiction. The company does not control fiction. The fans interpret fiction. The fans do no interpret the company. These are the terms I am speaking in.
I will speak in less patronizing terms when we start discussing specifics. For starters, that means to stop using the word canon. Let's say what we really mean. 'What do we regard as the value and status of this writing in the context of lore? What do we have to fear from acknowledging its existence on this site?' I don't know what you want to do with Ted Peterson's RP, but I'm sure we could decide if we tried to make an informed decision using judgment (perish the thought) and stopped using it as some irrelevant hypothetical.
When that happens, I'll stop urging on this supposed looming deluge, because the lore section could use it to wash away the prudery and get back on topic. Temple-Zero 22:09, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Ugh, TL;DR (Too long; didn't read). All I saw was canon, and I know exactly what I will say. If it is canon, keep it OUT of the page. Unless it's officially sourced by Bethesda and/or in the game, keep it out of the article. Think of it as Pokemon, or any other lame anime show. Just because a fan claims that Pikachu evolved into a Bulbasaur in a comic book, doesn't make it canon to the actual series. Just because a fan wrote the things you've inserted into the article, Temple, doesn't make it officially canonical to the game. Let's try to keep the two things separate. DaedryonTCE 23:36, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

foul murder[edit]

"hinting that he killed Nerevar?" Mightn't we go the explicit route and say that he both denies it and confesses in his writings?Temple-Zero 00:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

We would do better to simply quote each of the conflicting accounts, making sure to point out which in-game document or character is being quoted and whose point of view the quote represents. After all, the controversy isn't just between players. The characters within the game disagree to the point of killing each other over it. LordXenophon (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2013 (GMT)

Vivec missing?[edit]

Is there any other information about his supposed disappearance?— Unsigned comment by 98.200.70.38 (talk) at 13:03 on 22 July 2009

No, but remember that's just a rumor. According to other rumors he's busy killing Daedric Princes while on trial [1]rpehTCE 18:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering that it is possible to finish the main quest in Morrowind after killing Vivec and that many players do so, it was nesecary for the writers to work the possibility into later background material. Declaring him "missing" accounts for both players who killed him and players who spared him, making it the obvious choice for the writers. LordXenophon (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

His dealings with the Empire?[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any mention of his dealings with the Empire, specifically as the peace treaty. Ninti 00:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vivec's Appearance[edit]

I was just wondering if anyone can tell me why Vivec is half Chimer and Dunmer (this is what I assume the skin colors are) in appearance? I read through this page, and any explanation for this continues to elude me. Auri-El Reborn 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a god--60.234.208.237 09:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
He's a god? I hope you're kidding because this doesn't answer anything and I guess he still looked like this, even after losing his godhood.
It's not wrong to say so, tho, obviously, because he looks like this because he wanted to (having been godlike in power and all that), but I believe there is deep reason to his choice of appearance.
Solidarity, to make it short. Vivec lived as a Chimer, looking like an Altmer, basicly, but (arguably) his actions at Red Mountain led to a curse upon all Chimer (by Azura), turning them into Dunmer (as far as evidence goes, their transformation was near instantenous (as was the disappearance of the Dwemer), not evolution based), hence he chose to embrace his peoples fate, by, in godhood, not simply keeping his old looks while all the Chimer suffered some minor transformation, he accepted the transformation (punishment), but, by staying half-Chimer also retained a reminder of their (his?) peoples origin and original identity.
It's kinda difficult to put into few words. ;-)
79.223.159.248 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It is pretty difficult to summarize, which is why we haven't elaborated any further on the page. I think it was a matter of showing solidarity with the Dunmer people, as well, but without knowing for sure, it's best for us not to speculate. Minor Edits 20:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Vehk"?[edit]

I keep seeing Vivec referred to as "Vehk" but have been unable to find a reason for this. If somone knows, could they please put it in Vivec's page? It seems an odd thing to have so little info about. 74.128.56.194 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you not read this page? One example quote is in the paragraph at the top. --Brf 16:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes on Changes[edit]

Okay, I know this article has become really long; I did my best to keep it concise, but Vivec probably has the most available history of any person in the TES series. There's probably room to cut it down a bit here and there. Anyways, I obviously tried to spice it up with pertinent images; their placement looks pretty good on my screen, but I know these pages don't appear the same for everyone, so please revise, replace, or remove as you see fit.

I know I took some liberty with the ending paragraph of both the "Teachings" and "End of the Tribunal" sections, but I feel they're restating conclusions and concerns that would occur to any citizen of Tamriel totally familiar with Vivec's story, therefore I felt they were appropriate. If you disagree, go ahead and change them; you won't get an edit war out of me. Same with the opening quotes; I think they're aesthetically pleasing and add to the substance of the page, but I know some people out there seem to oppose such quotes on principle. Opening each section of the page with a pertinent quote from Vivec was a policy on the page I merely continued, and if you're looking for a debate on the matter, I'm the wrong guy. Keep 'em, lose 'em, I don't care. Minor Edits 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor Edits, [2] it is not "too major" change of yours without consultation with others? --Arkhon 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you never really have to ask to edit. No one complained when he expanded the page in the first place. If anyone has a problem with his edit, they can edit the article themselves (Unless it is locked in such a way that you can't edit it, but I think you have the same user-rights so that isn't an issue), bring it up on talk, or revert the edit all together. However, I don't think there is ever a case for complaining about an edit simply because it's a big change to the article (As long as that edit doesn't violate site policy or standards that is). --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree but I meant the context he removed. Well if basically he is the author of this article I have no further complaints and I do have to apologize then. However, I believe that game quotations are good in this article. --Arkhon 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You should probably read this conversation. I believe that's what convinced ME to do this. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 20:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

() Sorry, Arkhon, it's just that no one seemed to like them. There's actually been more de fact consultation about those quotes than anything I've ever done here, and it was pretty uniformly negative. I got the distinct impression that people were waiting for them to go away. I couldn't decide if there were any worth keeping, so I decided to remove them all, and I've been trying to get through edit conflict to ask here if anyone thought of the quotes should be reintroduced, as well as get thoughts about the Dagoth Ur image. If you want to take a look at them again and see if you think any are worth saving, people can check the edit history or look at my old Sandbox. Minor Edits 20:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I prefer it without the quotations personally (although I like the one at the beginning of the History section), but at least two editors want them to remain. However, many others have expressed that they'd prefer them gone (including Minor Edits, who - as the main contributor to the current revision - I would consider to have the most say). --Legoless 20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Game quotations give more lore feeling to articles, we at least that's how I see it but if there is a vote of majority to remove them, let it be. --Arkhon 20:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm raising the white flag on this one. It's not so much that I don't like them or want them gone, but that I don't want to stand in the way of others who dislike them. The way things seem to be going, it looks like one or two might stay, but most will be gone. Which ones stay, if any, is up to you guys. Minor Edits 20:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

() I went ahead and removed them, since I have a feeling most people wanted them removed for the time being. Also, Arkhon, there is absolutely no requirement to have a "consultation with others" before you edit (even so, there was a discussion regarding it). If you feel like they belong, voice your opinion in the appropriate place. Thanks. elliot (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, stop the edit war, it's not serving any purpose. I'm sure we can come to an agreement about this. How about we leave some and remove the rest? --Arkhon 20:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok looks like I missed something... Well, I don't want to be a **** but I actually think it looked better with quotes, I thought it looked more professional. Also, I think the quotes themselves seem like very important information, however, they're pretty much Morrowind quotes, and would therefore belong on his Morrowind page. But dialogue isn't documented on Morrowind npc pages now is it? I wonder why it isn't, I'm sure it's quite some more than Oblivion, I don't know how much more, but wouldn't it be the right thing to do? Well I guess I'm going off-topic here. I just wanted to mention that ~ Dwarfmp 02:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Image[edit]

This image of Dagoth Ur (which was originally for a userpage) looks like it has been tampered with far too much. I'd much prefer if an in-game version was used (although I admit that our current version is quite low quality). --Legoless 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured there was some sort of problem with it, since it hadn't been used. Let's go with the regular shot, then. Just thought it looked interesting and I felt I needed something to break up the text a little more without the quotes. Minor Edits 20:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Vivec's Spear[edit]

Seems like his spear Muatra comes up a lot in Kirkbride's writings. It's mentioned a lot in the sermons, and I don't know if the trial is canon or not, but if it is, he did once use it to banish Azura. Surely, it's a notable enough part of his background to warrant at least a passing mention in the article. Right? Wonklad (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2012 (GMT)

Probably. Like you said, the Sermons bring it up a lot. The page pretty much avoids OOG, though, and Trial of Vivec is about as canonical as one of the ES roleplays in our forums. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:43, 11 December 2012 (GMT)

Move to Lore:Vivec[edit]

The page for Vivec City was moved to Lore:Vivec City so there is no more need to have disambiguation text for this page. Instead, they can link to each other using the About template. I'm only creating a topic instead of doing it right now because I'm not sure if there was some other reason to keep it this way. If we really need a disambiguation page, it would be better to create Lore:Vivec (disambiguation). —Dillonn241 (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a hard fight to get the city moved, and part of the reason was, as you say, that there did not need to be a disambiguation with use of the About template. There were a lot of links to both Vivic pages, and making sure all the city ones went to the city before was a concern before moving this page. My vote, as an instigator of the original move, is to move this page to the non-disambiguation name. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I would support such a move. There is a large enough distinction in the nomenclature that disambiguation in Lorespace seems unnecessary (to me), given these are the only two pages in question. Echo (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Every source since TES3 has now used Vivec City as the name of the place, including its appearance in ESO. It was a conscious choice for them to move away from the ambiguous naming situation, so I don't see why we shouldn't follow suit. The controversy which led to the retention of the current article name was far more understandable when TES3 was our main source and clearly favoured "Vivec" as the place name. —Legoless (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)