Skip navigation
Library

C0DA

65 replies [Last post]
Bibliophael's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2011

Proweler wrote:

Xarnac,

less flippant then. Knowing that you know nothing is the start of all philosophy. Rather then taking things for granted, you start with nothing, define your axioms, and then deduce on from there using only the results of your deductions and your axioms. This processes is foundation of all logical reasoning.

I can't invalidate the experience or thoughts of someone else. Assuming they are consistent it all comes down to the selected axioms. Now if they don't want to include something or can't stand to exclude something, that is fine but it also ends the conversation.

But that is not what I was trying to say: The Dreamer, the one that dreams the Aurbis, knows nothing and perceives nothing and from that nothing came everything. This thing has been burned into the lore for ages.

That may be, but we do not examine the world of Aurbis as enlightened philosophers but as historians sifting through the records of lost ages.

If we dismiss all lore, all precedent, all truth, we are left with NOTHING and all discussion of our findings, our philosophies becomes reduced to the petulant squabbles of ignorant children, blindly and stubbornly insisting to one another that 'what I say is true', regardless of the foundation or lack thereof supporting any one's perspective!

Xarnac The Conqueror's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2012

Proweler wrote:

 

But that is not what I was trying to say: The Dreamer, the one that dreams the Aurbis, knows nothing and perceives nothing and from that nothing came everything. This thing has been burned into the lore for ages.

Coda no longer requires what's been "burnt into lore for ages."

 

Not to mention we could argue philosophically over what you just said. And that "everything" is really nothing, so nothing came from something. But, since the Godhead/arch dreamer is something, his dream which is something, came from something. It came from himself and his perception of his own non dream world.

 

So whether you were being flippant or not, nothing you said had anything to do with what I said. So again: I agree with Count Vodkula. The Socratic "I know that I know nothing," (since I can't think of a better way to put it) is a boring cop out.

Offline
Joined: 06/21/2012

So what about that Auri-El/Trinimac thing? Is it too crazy/nonsensical to work (even in the TES context) or is it at all plausible? Because if it is, I'm seriously considering writing something for it.

Dagoth Relnav's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2013

Do it. Then we will judge you based on your work. JUUUUUUUUUDGGGGGE.

Offline
Joined: 07/06/2010

I'm unclear on what is happening.

Offline
Joined: 06/21/2012

Auri-El and Trinimac might get real close soon.

cpt.Od's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010

I think this is better than that sketch of Nerevar the mutineer.

Proweler's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2010

Xarnac The Conqueror wrote:

You didn't get what I said... at all. Plato attributes Socrates with saying "I know that I know nothing," which means I can only know what I observe. Coda goes one step further and says everything you've observed is nothing, then goes even further and says you need no reason or logic for anything. That's a boring cop out to me.

What exactly is it in C0da that says that?

Bibliophael wrote:
That may be, but we do not examine the world of Aurbis as enlightened philosophers but as historians sifting through the records of lost ages.

If we dismiss all lore, all precedent, all truth, we are left with NOTHING and all discussion of our findings, our philosophies becomes reduced to the petulant squabbles of ignorant children, blindly and stubbornly insisting to one another that 'what I say is true', regardless of the foundation or lack thereof supporting any one's perspective!

Isn't that what we have been doing anyway? I was 15 years old back in 2002 when I played Morrowind and started posting on the lore forum of a game set in a fictional universe. I was pretty petulant back then. I tried the real Historian thing and it doesn't work. Its a crutch, a denial of reality, a fantasy for a fantasy world.

What sets me apart now from who I was back then are two realisations.

The lore is based on fiction and much better explained in those terms. Just to take a very obvious and hopefully non-contentious example, the disappearance of Cyrodiils rainforest. It is not possible to reconcile mention of Cyrodiils rainforest with its absence in Oblivion. Its absence can only be explained in terms of a (poor) game design choice. What ever was done after the fact is dressing that choice up for the stage. Another one is the disappearance of all eligible Septims in Oblivion. The Story of Oblivion revolves around finding the last heir. There is no way to reconcile the existence of the rather wide Septim family tree and otherwise non-blood related inheritance with that storyline. But that is the story Bethesda wanted to tell. Now these are just the two most glaring examples from a poorly executed game. Morrowind and Skyrim were much better about it but they're not perfect either. If this were a world build for actual historians, they'd be considering it a very strange world indeed and would soon come to the conclusion that their world was in fact operating on the rules of fiction, we playing historians are actively trying to ignore that.

The other realisation is that Lore is a quilt woven from the works of different authors, not a single consistent work. I like the collective collaborative work of a very specific subset of developers. Specifically DG, MK, KK and KR. Other developers simply haven't managed grasp both the feel and consistency of lore. For example the metaphysics that came with transition from Daggerfall to Morrowind was a major retcon and yet it didn't invalidate ideas from the Light and the Dark or Ar'kay the God. Instead those ideas were taken in and given a new spin. It made them fit and doing so made the world richer for it. Yet on the other side we have the Interview With Two Denizens of the Shivering Isles. Instead answering any questions regarding conflicts with existing information from previous work, it is simply discarded as being wrong and putting nothing back into its place for it. Since I can not reconcile both view points and since the developers didn't try to reconcile them either, I pick my favourites to follow.

But thats not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that all these years we have been doing just that what C0da suggest we do. We've been reading lore, picking our sources and making our own. We didn't simply look at lore from the games and left it at that, we connected it all together and we filled in the gaps with our own explanations. When the lore was unsatisfactory we came up with our own ideas. We've made our fiction and added it to the patch work. Its exactly because the lore is a work of fiction and a patch work of different authors that C0da can exist. It doesn't matter who writes a piece of the patch work. All ideas have equal validity and everyone is the arbiter of his own tastes.

Its not that different from the past. The only difference is that now you have to make the ideas you are using explicit. Now you talk about truth, but even truth is based on axioms. If there is no agreement on those, there can be no discussion. We'd only be petulant little children if we did not realize this and argued anyway.

 

Proweler's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2010

Xarnac The Conqueror wrote:
Coda no longer requires what's been "burnt into lore for ages."

You get write on the pages of this choose your own adventure book now. If you want the dreamer, you can have him. If you don't, well write him out of the story.

I really don't see the problem there. I might not want the book after you're done with it, but that's fine. You don't have to play with my book either. Ofcourse we'd want to compare our adventures, we do have to be on the same *ahem* book. But its not required that we are otherwise.

Xarnac The Conqueror's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2012

Proweler wrote:

What exactly is it in C0da that says that?

Coda says we can throw anything out the window, or add most anything we want. Despite what we've seen or haven't seen, read about or haven't etc. At least that's what MK's post pretty much said. You even seem to acknowledge it here:

Proweler wrote:

 If you want the dreamer, you can have him. If you don't, well write him out of the story.

 

So I don't understand what this has to do with what I said:

Proweler wrote:

 

But that is not what I was trying to say: The Dreamer, the one that dreams the Aurbis, knows nothing and perceives nothing and from that nothing came everything. This thing has been burned into the lore for ages.

And then "why would anything be burned in, according to Coda," is what I said. The underlined seems to disregard one of Coda's rules.

You seemed to take my initial post as some comment on ES lore. It wasn't, it was me trying to describe in a Socratic way how I feel about what I understand to be Coda, or what Coda could mean. Then when I said "The dream has ended," I think you again took that as some esoteric ES lore jargon, but it was commentary about what Coda might mean to lore (or what Coda might lead to in the lore community).

Anchorite's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2012

Bibliophael wrote:

That may be, but we do not examine the world of Aurbis as enlightened philosophers but as historians sifting through the records of lost ages.

If we dismiss all lore, all precedent, all truth, we are left with NOTHING and all discussion of our findings, our philosophies becomes reduced to the petulant squabbles of ignorant children, blindly and stubbornly insisting to one another that 'what I say is true', regardless of the foundation or lack thereof supporting any one's perspective!

There is a logical fallacy in assuming that C0DA seeks to negate "official" lore (A shaky term at best), by dint of supporting collaborative fiction which is based in the same 'universe' (multiverse?).

C0DA will not prevent us from debating Cyrodiil's "real" climate, whether or not Khajiit are really "just elves," or what the Tower(s) is (are). It is not "dismissing" lore, throwing out "precedent," or, the Eight forbid it, negating "truth."

It a collaborative project for people who want to put their art in the context of the Elder Scrolls. Some of it will be very well researched, and based largely on in-game fiction. Other parts will deviate markedly from this. That is all.

Also:

Xarnac, I'm not certain I understand where you're coming from. C0DA is a project which exists outside of the system of lore upon which the games are based. If you feel more comfortable in the confines of a structured canon of texts which are considered true, then more power to you; I'm just not sure how you're connecting C0DA with a broader philosophical system which I would regard as a form of Idealism.

I, admittedly with some hesitation, would offer a slight clarification on the use of the Socratic Paradox. It is not a statement which alludes to empiricism (reality being determined through observation). In fact, that statement cannot be directly attributed to Plato or Socrates, in that form. It is derived from a number of secondary sources, as well as two primary Platonic works: the Apology and Meno. I quote a translation of the Apology here, to clarify the intent of the passage: "Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows [something]; I neither know nor think that I know [anything]."

This was an explanation of the meaning behind the words of the oracle of Delphi, "...there was no man wiser [than Socrates]." There are two ways to interpret this: one, Socrates is the wisest because he knows he knows nothing, or Socrates is no wiser than anyone else, because all are equally ignorant.

I would actually hazard a guess and say that you're a strict empiricist, in which case the above platitudes regarding knowledge and truth are offensive to your sensibilities. I admit to disliking it intensely myself while first studying it. I am reminded that, upon finishing my first reading of the Apology, I slammed the book closed and said "thank God the bastard downed that poison!"

It was only later that I became less emotionally invested in philosophy, and was able to digest the Socratic method fully. Now that I'm a devil's advocate to a fault, I love it, LOL.

Finally, if I have misinterpreted the intent of the above statements of Bibliophael and Xarnac, and their original intent was to argue against any organized collaboration of artistic works which does not strictly adhere to The Elder Scrolls lore as established by Bethesda / Zenimax, then I apologize for my long-winded statement, and politely agree to disagree.

Xarnac The Conqueror's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2012

Anchorite wrote:

 

Finally, if I have misinterpreted the intent of the above statements

You did.

'I know that I know nothing' means only the observed can be confidently known and even then there's no certainty. Which is what Coda postulates. Many concurrent archs and timelines running through each other with no certainty. "My C0DA is where all of Nirn's can exist in simulcast without regret." It's all quite clear in the Code of Coda.

It had nothing to do with some personal belief in observing the real world or some deep philosophical statement. It was stating the obvious. Even at face value the Socrates' quote is an obvious agnostic viewpoint/statement. I see no need for rampant agnosticism when we already have so much of it, and this is the one place where there can be absolute truths. I find that sort of pointlessness boring, which is what I said in the first place.

Proweler's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2010

Xarnac The Conqueror wrote:

Proweler wrote:

What exactly is it in C0da that says that?

Coda says we can throw anything out the window, or add most anything we want. Despite what we've seen or haven't seen, read about or haven't etc. At least that's what MK's post pretty much said. You even seem to acknowledge it here:

Proweler wrote:

 If you want the dreamer, you can have him. If you don't, well write him out of the story.

 

So I don't understand what this has to do with what I said:

Proweler wrote:

 

But that is not what I was trying to say: The Dreamer, the one that dreams the Aurbis, knows nothing and perceives nothing and from that nothing came everything. This thing has been burned into the lore for ages.

And then "why would anything be burned in, according to Coda," is what I said. The underlined seems to disregard one of Coda's rules.

You seemed to take my initial post as some comment on ES lore. It wasn't, it was me trying to describe in a Socratic way how I feel about what I understand to be Coda, or what Coda could mean. Then when I said "The dream has ended," I think you again took that as some esoteric ES lore jargon, but it was commentary about what Coda might mean to lore (or what Coda might lead to in the lore community).

Here ya go, in pick your own adventure style.

1. Do you like the idea of the Dreamer? Yes, then go to #2, if no go to #3.

2. Good choice! There has been allot written about the Dreamer. Its implied in the Monomyth, ect, ect,ect. Lets have some fun with this. Proceed to #4.

3. Owh I'm sorry. But it seems we disagree on the basic principles. There is no point in discussing this with you any further. Proceed to #5.

4. We are the ones that experience the Elderscrolls Universe, so that makes us the dreamers. Yet we experience it in different ways. And I can't really invalidate your experience, I simply don't share it.  Something similar happens during the Dragon Break. It seems that this is another concept in Lore inspired on the inability to reconcile the different experiences. Do you have your own thoughts on it? If not then proceed to #5. If so, then proceed to #6,

5. Well that was a bit short but no foul. Proceed to #7.

6. Interesting. Do you want to discus some more? If so proceed to #6. If not go to #7.

7. Thank you for your time. Maybe we'll talk again in the future.

The end.

Xarnac The Conqueror's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2012

You seem to be changing up your points, or arguments. You said, "This thing has been burned into lore for ages," which pretty much comes off as not knowing what Coda's about, while trying to act like you were teaching me something I didn't know. I'm still not sure what anything you're saying has to do with anything I've said. I pretty much said I don't like Coda because of its agnostic nature. You keep going on about dreamers and shit. I'm not talking about lore, I'm talking about how it's quantified. I know what the Coda is, the Code of Coda made it quite clear. I don't think it's some destroyer of in game canon, I just think it's sort of boring, which I think is within my right as someone who's sought truth in the ES series since 94. Basically, all I did was agree with Vodkula, who's opinion MK didn't even argue against.

The high handed "This thing has been burned into lore for ages," pretty much goes against "My C0DA is where all of Nirn's can exist in simulcast without regret." So I didn't understand why you said that, unless you thought all my previous posts were about lore and not how it's processed.

When I said the dream is dead, I wasn't arguing cosmology, I was saying in hyperbolic jest that lore is dead. This is where the failure to communicate started I believe.

Anchorite's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2012

Xarnac The Conqueror wrote:

'I know that I know nothing' means only the observed can be confidently known and even then there's no certainty. Which is what Coda postulates.

I am disappointed to see that you didn't read my missive. Admittedly it was a tad too pedantic, but I was doing my best to restrain myself, apparently to no avail. Ha! But down to business:

Where has it ever been said that 'I know that I know nothing' means 'only the observed can be confidently known'? This is surely not attributable to Plato, as I have already mentioned the context to which the phrase refers. To be honest, my intent behind explaining the origins of the phrase was to given a reason why it had no reason to be used in this discussion. If this was lost, I apologize for my lack of clarity.

Xarnac The Conqueror wrote:

Many concurrent archs and timelines running through each other with no certainty. "My C0DA is where all of Nirn's can exist in simulcast without regret." It's all quite clear in the Code of Coda.

...And? It has never been, and shall not be, debated that C0DA's intent was free expression of art derived from TES themes. This free expression, as stated by C0DA's author, does not necessitate following "canon" lore to the letter, or at all. On this, I think, we agree.

Xarnac The Conqueror wrote:

[...] I see no need for rampant agnosticism when we already have so much of it, and this is the one place where there can be absolute truths. I find that sort of pointlessness boring, which is what I said in the first place.

Emphasis is mine. For the sake of 'canon' I only wish this were true. Unfortunately, there is no such place where there can be absolute truths in our favorite work of fiction. So much has changed between each installment, and much will continue to change as time goes on, as the series evolves. "Nothing is sacred," as they say...

To sum it all up,

You have every right to tell people their art project is boring and pointless. I just have to ask what is the point of saying that in the first place? MK's admirers are renowned for their monkey-truth. Telling them they're not playing according to the right rules has never prevented them from going off and doing their own thing. What has changed?

Nothing. Neither the Imperial Library nor the game-makers themselves will up and abandon their pre-established structures of narrative. It will have absolutely no bearing on the ES canon which you love.

And so I reiterate my initial question: What about C0DA bothers you?

Xarnac The Conqueror's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2012

You didn't get it. It was blatantly obvious, but you still missed it.

 

I don't like agnostic bullshit, it's a cop out. I know that I know nothing is an agnostic viewpoint that only the observable can be confidently considered, but even then there's no certainty. If MK didn't have a problem with such an opinion, why are his zealots breaking my balls over it?

Anchorite wrote:

 

To sum it all up,

You have every right to tell people their art project is boring and pointless.

And you still didn't get it. I'm not talking about each subjective work, I'm talking about the idea as a whole, multiple stories going on at once negating each other. That's boring to me.

It's done with. Let's just move on, like how I've already moved on from reading anymore Coda.

Anchorite's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2012

My deepest apologies, Xarnac. My intent was never to offend, upset, or insult. I have failed to communicate my confusion, and this has obviously blown this out of proportion.

Xarnac The Conqueror's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2012

I was a bit harsh too. I edited a few words to make it better.

 

I'll go over it as best as I can, then we can all move forward, hopefully.

 

I know that I know nothing means I can only know what I observe, and even then there's no certainty. It's like saying, maybe there's a god, maybe there's not. Which is what Coda postulates in a way. That multiple realities can be going on at once, so which one is real, are any real, are they all real? Sort of Pilaf's Multiverse theory come to explain... fan fics and fan art. That's a bit too agnostic for me. That's all I was saying, which is sort of what Vodkula said, which is why I said I agreed with his response to MK's Code of Coda post. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my first post.

Bibliophael's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2011

Proweler wrote:
Bibliophael wrote:
That may be, but we do not examine the world of Aurbis as enlightened philosophers but as historians sifting through the records of lost ages.

If we dismiss all lore, all precedent, all truth, we are left with NOTHING and all discussion of our findings, our philosophies becomes reduced to the petulant squabbles of ignorant children, blindly and stubbornly insisting to one another that 'what I say is true', regardless of the foundation or lack thereof supporting any one's perspective!

Isn't that what we have been doing anyway? I was 15 years old back in 2002 when I played Morrowind and started posting on the lore forum of a game set in a fictional universe. I was pretty petulant back then. I tried the real Historian thing and it doesn't work. Its a crutch, a denial of reality, a fantasy for a fantasy world.

What sets me apart now from who I was back then are two realisations.

The lore is based on fiction and much better explained in those terms. Just to take a very obvious and hopefully non-contentious example, the disappearance of Cyrodiils rainforest. It is not possible to reconcile mention of Cyrodiils rainforest with its absence in Oblivion. Its absence can only be explained in terms of a (poor) game design choice. What ever was done after the fact is dressing that choice up for the stage. Another one is the disappearance of all eligible Septims in Oblivion. The Story of Oblivion revolves around finding the last heir. There is no way to reconcile the existence of the rather wide Septim family tree and otherwise non-blood related inheritance with that storyline. But that is the story Bethesda wanted to tell. Now these are just the two most glaring examples from a poorly executed game. Morrowind and Skyrim were much better about it but they're not perfect either. If this were a world build for actual historians, they'd be considering it a very strange world indeed and would soon come to the conclusion that their world was in fact operating on the rules of fiction, we playing historians are actively trying to ignore that.

The other realisation is that Lore is a quilt woven from the works of different authors, not a single consistent work. I like the collective collaborative work of a very specific subset of developers. Specifically DG, MK, KK and KR. Other developers simply haven't managed grasp both the feel and consistency of lore. For example the metaphysics that came with transition from Daggerfall to Morrowind was a major retcon and yet it didn't invalidate ideas from the Light and the Dark or Ar'kay the God. Instead those ideas were taken in and given a new spin. It made them fit and doing so made the world richer for it. Yet on the other side we have the Interview With Two Denizens of the Shivering Isles. Instead answering any questions regarding conflicts with existing information from previous work, it is simply discarded as being wrong and putting nothing back into its place for it. Since I can not reconcile both view points and since the developers didn't try to reconcile them either, I pick my favourites to follow.

But thats not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that all these years we have been doing just that what C0da suggest we do. We've been reading lore, picking our sources and making our own. We didn't simply look at lore from the games and left it at that, we connected it all together and we filled in the gaps with our own explanations. When the lore was unsatisfactory we came up with our own ideas. We've made our fiction and added it to the patch work. Its exactly because the lore is a work of fiction and a patch work of different authors that C0da can exist. It doesn't matter who writes a piece of the patch work. All ideas have equal validity and everyone is the arbiter of his own tastes.

Its not that different from the past. The only difference is that now you have to make the ideas you are using explicit. Now you talk about truth, but even truth is based on axioms. If there is no agreement on those, there can be no discussion. We'd only be petulant little children if we did not realize this and argued anyway.

I value this and other forums for the fantastic discussions our shared interests make possible. For years, we've been turning over, assembling and reassembling, those often conflicting, often impossible sources of lore which best validate our individual perspectives, and we've worked collaboratively and competitively to make sense of, to unify, to comprehend and aggregate those contrary sources into a cohesive whole. I love those discussions, even when I'm not part of them, because there is a level of respect and collective enthusiasm for the material which makes the fantastic seem real and the incomprehensible appropriate.

Of course I respect the monkey truth the apocrypha and the obscure texts, they are essential components to the perfectly imperfect tapestry of the Elder Scrolls lore and I would not see them excised for the world. I am not concerned that there is no singular beast I can name canon. I am concerned that for the first time in my knowledge the lore has been dissolved so completely that your beast may not even appear (in any way!) related to mine, or to Kirkbride's or to any other's. For the first time, the skeleton of our shared dream has been removed, and without it we have no basis by which to build discussions or new, collaborative dreams.

For discussion to exist, for logical or intelligent discourse to take place, the participants involved must recognize and believe in certain fundamental axioms. For the philosopher to say 'I know nothing' he must suppose, however skeptically, that 'I exist' and that 'I may know something.' For us to discuss the lore in any intelligible, meaningful, respectful way, we must suppose, however critically, that the records we know hold weight. Some may hold more, others less, but all must have some substance if anyone is to ever speak to any other.

I would welcome your correction, but I hear this coda as a dirge pronouncing that canon is dead, and with it all truth. I hear you saying that in truth's place you will erect its shambling effigy,  the insular dream. And I weep! because without our truth we are all strangers paddling listlessly across a blank grey sea, staring down into depths of our own imagining, vacuously masturbating to images that have long since lost any real meaning.

I cannot bear such an end to so colorful a story as the Elder Scrolls, and for as long as I am able I will oppose you.

Xarnac The Conqueror's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2012

If you don't participate in Coda's creation, you get to create your own realm later. Minus the sacrifices.

Anchorite's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2012

Bibliophael,

I think that everyone who is involved with C0DA, and those who want to be, would agree that their goal isn't to invalidate your experience of what TES lore is and means (If any of these parties wishes to disagree, please correct me).

Like I wrote before, C0DA will (probably) have no bearing whatsoever on the Elder Scrolls Universe as depicted by the games. Game lore will be controlled by the game designers, and we, the fans of the games, will continue to be able to discuss the meaning behind the developer's work.

C0DA is an outlet for those who want to work outside the constraints of lore and canon. What is there to fight against? You can disagree with it, and many already do. This is perfectly alright.

Bibliophael's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2011

My trouble is not with those people engaged with the Coda, nor does it concern the belief that my experience of the Elder Scrolls will be in some way being corrupted. I am concerned by the threat of losing canon, as I believe without canon's common ground there is no way for anyone to discuss, in any meaningful way, the lore.

Offline
Joined: 06/21/2012

From what has been said, there will be a sort of 'common' C0DA (i.e. MK's C0DA, I think), so there will be a sort of canon people could follow. The thing is that people can add to it, and if the general community accepts it, it becomes part of that general C0DA.

Dagoth Relnav's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2013

As I see it, just like with, say, the rules of logic or the USB, there are standard, agreed-upon bases from which indavidual c0das spring. The only real difference between these standards and 'canon' is that they were agreed upon by the users, rather than handed down on high. There is no special power outside of humanity that forced us to accept the rules of logic, the universal serial bus. Now the same can be said for TES lore. So there is no need to worry about the loss of canon, it's just changed hands. :)

dinmenel's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2011

Yeah, I (pretty much) agree with Bibliophael. The message the community needs is that we should listen to each other instead of clinging so tightly to our own interpretations. That goes as much between fans and devs as between fans and fans. I think C0DA's message will encourage people to sink into their own versions of Tamriel without considering what other people have to share, and that's a loss of richness for everyone.

Dagoth Relnav's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2013

And there really lies the disagreement: Is the idea of C0DA one of unity or fragmentation? Ultimately, only time can answer that question. As of now it's only speculation from both parties.

I'll see you guys when the smoke clears and someone can say "I told you so."

Anchorite's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2012

Dagoth Relnav wrote:

I'll see you guys when the smoke clears and someone can say "I told you so."

Ha! Yeah really... I must admit I'm surprised by the amount of controversy it has generated. I initially thought almost everyone would pretty much ignore it, and the Monkey-Truthers would leap on it like Marukhatis on a jiggy Tower... Instead, I've noticed a lot of negative feedback, both here and on reddit

Actually, that link highlights a fact which will probably ring true in a couple months: Everyone will look at the New Thing, say it stinks or it rocks, or not say anything at all, and then almost everyone will shuffle along into the next room.

After discussing it here, and reading other people's discussions, I can understand why people think that C0DA is boring or antagonistic to discussion. I can also understand why people are turning to C0DA, so as to avoid the circular "well, the game says this" arguments.

On the one hand, you might have people coming in now, acting like hot-shots, throwing "C0DA-this, C0DA-that," souring the conversation. On the other, our community has always had people using "evidence" from the games to argue a moot point - like objective morality for in-game factions, or whose myths are true - and shutting down the conversation if their version isn't accepted as "canon."

Some people will be open to discussion, and others won't. In the end evaluation, I suppose, nothing really changes.

Jeroic's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/28/2010

As I see it, it's basically that there's no more saying "it doesn't fir the games so it doesn't count" or "it doesn't fit my interpretation so it doesn't count." Which is basically how discussion gets derailed where I see it. Essentially, if I read it correctly, the idea is that if I interpret, let's say, the significance of the chest-hole closing on Lorkhan one way, that is valid and while you can point out why you think my interpretation is right or wrong you don't get to say "it doesn't fit x y and z so the whole idea is invalid."

Let's start a microcosm of a religion, though, and see how long it takes for people to twist it into "my way or the highway" like canoneers do.

Muertos1130's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/03/2012

Really, I see C0DA liberation like this:

 

Elsewhere on the internet I was discussing Elder Scrolls lore and I did some minor headbutting with someone who might be called a 'games purist' who kept detracting from other people's discussion by demanding in-game evidence to support their claims. In his mind, the burden of proof was on the side of the creator: it couldn't be considered 'true' unless it received direct support from established sources. C0DA really flips that on its head by turning 'why' into 'why not?'. It encourages people to create and share unique interpretations of characters and events without any boundaries.

It's the sort of thing that makes the Worldcanon thread great.

Offline
Joined: 02/23/2014

Hi everyone, I'm new, I would have make a new tread but I'm not allowed to. I'm just trying to make sens of what I just read. So in MK's CODA, somewhen after Skyrim, in the 4th Era, something happened that made time collapsed. The dragon broke for good. First Question: Was this event ''Landfall''. Then I guess things went pretty bad on Nirn, so that people decided to go live under the surface of Masser (did everyone go or only Dunmer and Khajiit?). Somewhere between that the Divines seems to have started walking amongst the living, as time/history/reality is not relevant anymore. The Tribunal, with Dagoth Ur And Molag Bal formed a justice league or something like that.. In between that some dude name Jubal caught off his hands so he could kill ''a'' Numidium by talking to it..so he could marry girl Vivec.. Oh yeh and there's that thing called Memory also.. BASICALLY I THINK I DIDN'T GET IT! Everywhere I search for CODA the only things I found  are people arguing the effect it will have on canon. So If anyone wants to share his interpratation of what the literal story of CODA is, I'd be glad to read it, because right now, I'm a bit (a lot, like with any MK's work) confused!