Lore talk:Eternal Champion

Start of the game and Symachus death

In vol 5 of Lore:The Real Barenziah, v 5 and vol 3 Lore:Biography of Queen Barenziah it is mentioned that she helped free the Eternal Champion after Symachus died .That would mean it supposedly happened in 391 or even 396 (according to the third pocket guide) which would contradict the ingame start year that is always 389.That would mean the quest took only 8 or even just 3 years.--217.244.69.107 20:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Eternal Champion's class

I know this might not be added to the page but wanted to write this anyway. Can we assume that the champion was a batlemage? Ria Silmane was Tharn's apprentice and she tutors the champion. Furthermore, mage classes start with a dagger and the intro text states Talin taking out his dagger. TheSeldomConsitentEditor (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Insufficient source for obtaining artefacts

I cannot find any source for the champion collecting artefacts, the link just says events of arena but it is optional to pursue the artefacts. TheSeldomConsitentEditor (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I restored your edit with a fix for the error. The whole area of canonical Hero deeds is a sort of gray area on the wiki, I brought it up on the community portal a while back and there wasn't really a consensus. One of the things I brought up in that discussion was how bloated individual lorepages would be for the Heroes, as it would be notable to describe each and every one of their godly artifacts. That point was never addressed by the opposition so its inconclusive exactly what the wiki's stance is on it. On one hand, most of the artifact pages have in their history that the Nerevarine, Last Dragonborn, Hero of Kvatch, etc. claimed them. On the other hand, it is not so for their respective pages (or entries on Lore:Hero) This page being the sole exception to that is, in my opinion, a poor precedent as it doesn't accurately reflect what has been exhibited in the rest of the wiki, thus my reverting. Mindtrait0r (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Childhood home

A picture has the caption underneath stating it is the childhood home of the eternal champion, what is the source of this?TheSeldomConsitentEditor (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the background image seen during the character creation sequence where you answer a bunch of questions based on the Champion's upbringing. --Rezalon (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I am well aware but can this not just be some home? TheSeldomConsitentEditor (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be just some random home if not the Eternal Champion's before the events of the game? --Rezalon (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just some background image to add to the atmosphere? 80.60.179.34 04:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought of it as the EC's home, too, but isn't it original research? Even if it were safe to assume that the image is of something in the class quiz, there are multiple buildings mentioned there that it could be; how do we know it's not the friend's home? And if we accept it on this page, consider that the same image is used in Daggerfall's class quiz. Would we then be forced to conclude that the Agent and EC lived together? Boustrophedon (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Daggerfall character creation scenario reuses Arena's, and its scenarios even contradict already established lore (such as the Agent's birth year), so I think it's safe to say it has no bearing on Daggerfall's PC. --Rezalon (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Name of Eternal Champion

Hi, I'm just curious about why UESP has settled on the name 'Talin' for the Eternal Champion just because of some screenshots and an Introduction, found in the Arena Player's Guide even though Bethesda once released a statement saying "only things that have been published in Elder Scrolls games should be considered official lore". (note the statement said games not books like guidebooks). Even the Talin lore article notes "The use of the name in these screenshots may just have been presented as an example identity, as several other names were also featured in other screenshots. Regardless, it later became a policy of Bethesda to avoid canonizing the identities of player characters (including the Eternal Champion), so as to not cheapen the player's own personal experiences in the games." So with that said, why is UESP using 'Talin' as the 'official' name of the Eternal Champion, not taking the random screenshots and intro with a grain of salt and ignoring Bethesda's policy of providing the player with creative freedom regarding character creation? -- --KevinM^(talk) 20:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

During an interview in 2019, when asked about fan theories, Todd gave a list on what one should prioritise as canon over other sources:

1: In-game events viewed through the eyes of the player

2: A book published in-universe that can be read inside the game

3: An official work published outside of the game (examples given include the game manual and the official cookbook)

As the game manuals fall into what is considered canon, it is a definitive source of information. As it is the only source of information regarding who the Eternal Champion is, and is not contradicted or retconned in any other canonical Elder Scrolls works, it is reasonable to assume this is indeed the Eternal Champion's identity. Whilst one can argue that the player's actions in the game take precedent over what's mentioned in the manual, these are subjective and unique to each and every player's unique playthrough, whereas the manual states an objective, set in stone truth.--Rezalon (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have another question. In the notes section it says "The race of the hero is never canonically confirmed and ultimately player determined. A pre-release screenshot depicts Talin as a Breton." Since the Arena Player's Guide has canonical info and confirms both the name and gender of the Eternal Champion, shouldn't the screenshot (featured in the gallery section) depicting Talin as a Breton count as canonical information, confirming his race, since it shows his canonical name and appearance (for both gender and race)? --KevinM^(talk) 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the screenshot comes from, but assuming it doesn't come from the manual, then I think the screenshot would fall outside of what constitutes as definitive lore. For example, so far the canonicity of the official Bethesda tweets depicting the heroes has been a topic of debate for a long time in Lore talk:Hero, so if they are dubious enough for debate then the screenshot would probably be too unauthoritative to confirm Talin's race outside of the notes section. BananaKing5 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Typically pre-release content isn't treated as canon since it does not always represent the final product (see Oblivion's trailer with the Bruma arena). --Rezalon (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Per Todd Howard's very quote here, number 1 is in-game events viewed through the eyes of the player. As is established many times, this is the greatest priority when it comes to player characters. And is the purpose for their ambiguity and vanishing in the first place. Listing Talin as the absolute backstory, halfway, where the gender and name is confirmed but race is left ambiguous, is incosistent and incongruent with both Todd's own quote, the treatment of the breton-race mention, and the treatment of every other hero (who all have varying depictions in various officially published material, such as the female Last Dragonborn within the Legends cards, which are more noteworthy than a vastly outdated manual).

Talin is worth mention as are the other developer suggested backstories, but there is no reason for precedence to be given towards Talin. Best leave it ambiguous as is developer intention. --The Entity (talk)

There is no Breton race mention. The only source which suggests Talin was a Breton is an in-game screenshot which, to my knowledge, was datamined. Not official like the book which confirms Talin's name. That "Young Dragonborn" is not a depiction of a female Last Dragonborn, it is just a female Dragonborn. There have been many female Dragonborn in TES lore, such as Potema. The card depicting a set of iron armor is also not an indicator that it depicts the Last Dragonborn. As confirmed by ESO's "Dragon Warrior" costume, that's just armor that Dragonborn throughout history have been known to wear. Mindtrait0r (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

An in-game screenshot that has as much canonical worth as a manual for the very first game of the franchise, from 1994, which is ages before they had cemented their treatment of PCs, alongside dozens of other example backstories given for the EC with various other screenshots shared here as well, or shared by devs on forums. We know the intentions of developers in regards to the player character. That being, they can not be confirmed, they are removed from the setting for that explicit purpose. Todd's quote makes that clear, as well as a hundred dozen other citations from other devs also clarifies that. The position of canons treatment to EC is clarified by Goodall alone, in the interview on Talin's page. The Manual is tertiary to in game books, which is second to the player's decision. In games book regard EC as mystery, and of course the player can play a female EC, male EC, or any kind of EC.

"Sinder Velvin: Will we ever find out the names of the Eternal Champion, the Hero of Daggerfall, the Hero of the Battlespire or the Nerevarine?"

"Douglas Goodall: As far as I know, they will always be nameless. This is a needlessly complicated way to avoid "playing favorites" and cheapening the player's experiences. For all I know, it wasn't my Breton Sorcerer or Khajiiti Assassin that re-assembled the Staff of Chaos and defeated Jagar Tharn, but your... Well... Whatever you played." "

The position of bethesda was made clear years ago and has been since. Having EC listed as male hero called Talin is not a sincere attempt to capture the "canon EC", it's a preference. Canon is roughly whatever the devs bring into consideration when making game to game. They haven't had EC show up as a man named Talin, they disappeared EC, with the same treatment given to every hero. And ESO then goes further than mysteriously vanishing to establish that player characters as a whole as "super natural prisoners" that can not have a defined self.

As for the female LDB in Legends cards, that's very blatantly a female version of the trailer Last Dragonborn. She is portrayed identically to said promotional material. Legends cards also display the perpetrator of the Great Heist, do we have an official Hero of Kvatch? And the various Skyrim trailers themselves portray several main characters at once, an Altmeri in elven armor, a Khajiit in Brotherhood gear, etc. That's also official material outside the main game that would be on Todd's tier 3, alongside manuals. Do we consider those the true Last Dragonborns each?

Again having Talin set a unique precedent as the "true EC", is inconsistent with the treatment of all heroes, as well as the very intentions of Bethesda, which are roughly what is canon to begin with. -- The Entity (talk)

The introduction given in the manual is still an official work of canon. Pre-release screenshots aren't as they are content released before the final product that the final product may contradict (eg: this can apply to beta maps containing locations that don't appear in the final game). The pre-release screenshot with the Breton Talin here is merely noteworthy and not being used to establish a racial profile on the Eternal Champion for that very reason. It's inclusion in the articles is because it relates to the Talin established in the manual as they share the same name and both are being used as a reference for the player character, to whom this article is dedicated. As nothing in-game or in an in-universe book as of 2024 contradicts the game manual in any way (simply being mysterious and unknown to the general in-universe populace doesn't negate their very person, their factual history. This also applies to rumours and alleged cultural heroes spread in-universe, whether they be official or unofficial developer commentary).

The introduction in the manual should not be discredited and should be taken as both an official source and likely the only official source of information regarding the Eternal Champion's background. It should be safe to say that, regardless of future (as of Arena's release) intentions of the development teams and how they wish to establish player-characters going forward, (and unless it is outright stated the introduction is no longer canon) this is who the Eternal Champion is. If the manual is to be discredited, then by that logic so much of what we've learned about Arena's backstory (Jagar Tharn's plotting, Eternal Champion's relationship to Ria Silmane and General Warhaft) should be discredited and removed from the wiki too. --Rezalon (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To add onto what Entity is saying, inconsistency doesn't even matter here. The claim that the Arena Guide's use of the name "Talin" for the Eternal Champion means that, in the absence of any other information, and as per the Todd scale of source-legitimacy, we should consider that the EC's name was Talin, completely ignores the very simple fact that the game itself, the number one legitimate source on canonicity, gives the player the ability to choose and customize their player character's gender, race and name. The game even comes with a quizz to determine your class and generate your character's backstory (one of which involves the establishment that your father's name was Talin). If the developpers wanted there to be a canonical Eternal Champion named Talin, they could have confirmed it afterwards (in game content or in interviews) or even not allowed the player to customize their player character, instead forcing the player to play as Talin Junior no matter what. I think we should perhaps reverse the reasoning here: would it have been possible for the Arena Guide to write a novel-like introduction to Arena with the player character as a protagonist without naming and gendering them? It seems clear to me that the Arena Guide short-story is presenting not a canonical Eternal Champion, but a possible instance of an Eternal Champion, one which can be made within the games (in the same way that any combination of name, gender, race and class can be made within the games). This debate would have never happened if two Guides had been published, each with a different main character. — HappyB3 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

(←) The page makes it clear that Talin is "allegedly" the character's name, and provides a link to a page with more info. There is no good reason to remove the name from the page entirely. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The story could have simply referred to the player character/Talin in the second person (eg: "You ask Ria Silmane", "You see a glint in the corner of your cell"). The character backstory quiz always uses the same questions, and never alters based on your responses; the information provided by the game is definitive, whilst your responses are fluid and not set in stone (hence why the info in the questions are written in this article and the answers are not). This is also not coming from a guide, this is coming from the manual that came with the game, written by the developers of the game, with intent. In the absence of information in the game (the player has to decide who the player character is) vs clearly presented information (the manual establishing this is who the Eternal Champion is), then the latter should take precedence. The manual states established, in-universe facts. Who each and every player decides to create in the character creation screen is fluid and not set in stone. If your personal character is the true Eternal Champion, then that is tantamount to headcanon and goes against what the official sources have already stated. --Rezalon (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer Legoless, I and Entity do not think the name should be removed at all. Entity (and Tarponpet who later came in to modify more pronouns Entity had missed) is the reason why the page now has the word "allegedly" and no longer has a "generally accepted background" mention. Entity and I are advocating for those mentions to remain as Entity changed them to be, that is to say, removing certitude and the canonicity of Talin being the true Eternal Champion.

To Rezalon: isn't the fluidity and "not set in stone" nature of the player character then the canonical fact of the Eternal Champion, since the customization of the player character is a design pillar of Arena (and most mainline games)? Games with set protagonists like Cyrus in TESA:Redguard exist. If the developpers wanted for the Eternal Champion to be Talin, son of Talin, who might or might not also be Talin Warhaft (General of the Imperial Guard), no matter what, they could have done so from within the confines of the game, or in the following games, or they could at the very least have confirmed it in interviews. That they didn't (and even expressed the opposite opinions) should be considered as a confirmation of the canonical in-game fact that we can choose who we play as. — HappyB3 (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Then explain to me how my personal Eternal Champion, for example, takes precedent over your Eternal Champion. Or Legoless's, for example. Or anyone else's, for that matter. If everyone's personal player character is the canon player character, then that just opens up an infinite amount of contradictions. None of them are official. All of them are a figment of the player's creative liberties. How does that supersede an official profile laid out inside official material sold alongside the game? --Rezalon (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"You play as Talin" is not just a given scenario. It is an objective statement. Details about Heroes have been definitively canonized before. The Nerevarine canonically looted Stormkiss even though you can choose not to. The Last Dragonborn canonically wore Elven gauntlets during The World-Eater's Eyrie even though you can choose not to. The Nerevarine canonically didn't complete Kill the Telvanni Councilors even though you can choose to. The Hero of Kvatch canonically did Dark Brotherhood quests even though you can choose not to. The Last Dragonborn canonically is less than 200 years old despite what players have in mind for their character. And there's several instances of Hero genders being mentioned, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Just because there is a general policy from Bethesda to avoid giving specifics about Heroes doesn't mean we should ignore what info we are given, especially when it is put a directly and objectively as Talin's name. Mindtrait0r (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Answering Rezalon: no Eternal Champion takes precedent on anyone else's, it's not that hard to understand. That's the entire point of giving the player choices to make. I don't think I or anyone else could make it any clearer than Douglas Goodall, a developper, when asked this very question years ago about the Eternal Champion, Agent, Battlespire Hero and Neverarine: "As far as I know, they will always be nameless. This is a needlessly complicated way to avoid "playing favorites" and cheapening the player's experiences. For all I know, it wasn't my Breton Sorcerer or Khajiiti Assassin that re-assembled the Staff of Chaos and defeated Jagar Tharn, but your... Well... Whatever you played." That's just how most TES games are designed around, with very few exceptions (like Cyrus the Restless, or in the case of really wanting a character to return in the next game, thus confirming that the Nerevarine never killed Neloth). There are areas of lore where the developpers intentionally refuse to speak so as to let the freedom of the player exist (within certain boundaries). Another developper, Michael Kirkbride, when asked whether Neloth's gendering of the Nerevarine as a "he" was a statement on canon, answered by saying "That line was a mistake a designer made in haste. Consider it a glitch." — HappyB3 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

(←) Kirkbride was not a developer at Bethesda at the time, his statement regarding the development of the Dragonborn DLC has no merit. --Rezalon (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been out for a bit but back now. Anyways

Rezalon: " The introduction given in the manual is still an official work of canon. Pre-release screenshots aren't as they are content released before the final product that the final product may contradict (eg: this can apply to beta maps containing locations that don't appear in the final game).", the final product is TES: Arena, not the manual. The manual is outside supplementary material, that is the lowest on the very tier of canonicity you shared from Todd. Pre-release screenshots are official, they are within the same level of importance as the Manual. Placing one over the other is itself arbitrary, why is Talin more valid than the screenshots? Arena lets you decide it's game, clearly Talin was not the final product. I can look at the EC myself, in game, the highest level of canon. EC is a woman, then a man, then whatever, quite literally in your face.

It absolutely should be discredited as the definition of canon is being treated abritrarily, not only is it beneath Player choice within the very hierarchy of canon Todd howard established as the highest importance, it is also the single most outdated piece of TES media in quite literally the entire franchise. This is a manual for the very first game of the entire franchise, one severely outdated in the longterm vision and therefore canon of the franchise. Treating it as an absolute that supersedes many statements on the importance of player characters is no longer an attempt to transmit what is "canonical" information. It is akin to trying to assert that ESO's Cyrodiil is a Jungle despite us witnessing it is not so, because within the PGE1 it is described to be a Jungle. When the player plays Arena, they are given the choice to change their name, and gender. That is what is actually within the game, the final product. On top of all of this, the manual also mentions:

" Once you have selected your homeland and your name, and answered thequestions that will aid you in choosing your class, or selected your class using the Select option, you will enter the stat generation section.", the manual itself declaring that your name and homeland/race can be decided. So are we placing one part of the manual over the other? Why are we treating a brief summary as greater authority than guidance how to play the game? On what ground is the summary above the guide on gameplay? Certainly not the intentions of developers, who made their stance on Talin clear, that being that the EC is nameless for the purpose of player choice.

On Michael Kirkbride's comments, this is willfully ignoring from what perspective Kirkbride is speaking. He isn't sharing his two cents as a fan online, he's making an authoritative statement because we know Kirkbride has contact and access to the development team of Skyrim. We know he talks to them, and can get direct answers from them. No different from Goodall's quote, both Kirkbride and Goodall and Todd is giving an insight to the innerworkings of Bethesda and what actually is considered canon or not, by Bethesda. Of special note is that Michael Kirkbride, having actually worked on Morrowind, has special authority to speak on the design philosophy of the game of Morrowind. Which is the goal of UESP, to collect and transmit the information Bethesda wants to share with us. That Talin backstory was one they shared many years ago before their stances changed greatly, though I would go as far as to suggest their stance was always that Talin, is but one potential history the player could use, among whatever else they wish. It is worth keeping as the artifact of the evolution of Arena, but placing it as the established fact, contrary to the actual intentions of Bethesda today, is a severe mistake.

Mindtraitor: These and more present no more inconsistency to promotional art or trailers, we know for a fact LDB didn't have Elven Guantlents as depicted there because we played the game, LDB encounters Alduin never once at a Dragon ruin. We encounter Alduin at those 4 locations, at Helgen, at Kynesgrove, the Throat, and lastly Sovngarde. This image depicts otherwise. Are you going to place a trading card over the actual events of the game? Are you saying now that Skyrim, the video game, is incorrectly depicting the events of our encounters with Alduin, while this trading card is? Now extend this to near every example. Extend this to any depiction outside the actual video game.



Mortal Npcs can claim what they wish about the player characters, mistakes happen, we know they do on the development side. Just spend 5 minutes looking at datings in TES. Fact is that the Devs do not actually consider those mistakes truth, and as Goodall demonstrates they generally go with the view that various conflicting accounts of heroes may exist. Which makes sense given the nature of this entire setting. As an example, tell me, is Tiber Septim from Atmora?

I will go further to cement that they have gone further to cement that player choice is more than just a "let's not talk about the player" hush situation, ESO has decided to borderline canonize character creation as actual lore. The "Prisoner" is now an actual magical position every player character holds, one who is beyond the rules of casuality and restriction, and is literally likened to the messiness of Dragon Breaks. On top of this ESO has gone further to establish what Shadowkey did long ago, that the Mundus is a multiverse, and further, that the player/prisoner is what varies most.

On the topic of Neloths survival, that isn't a player choice being invalidated so much as an entire questline. We can say the Nerevarine didn't do it, okay, did Trebonius simply never ask anyone? Did the quest simply never happen? Can we extend this to every single side quest in the franchise? Non-canon until a statement is shown? Do you realize how far that goes? It's far more likely that either the quests to slay Neloth are completely non-canon in particular now, or the millenia old Telvanni wizard who regularly deals with Daedric Princes found an impossible way to survive whoever it is that attempted to slay them, Nerevarine or not.

I will reiterate my exact position, I do not want Talin outright excised, I edited it to add more ambiguity. This is compromise that I do not see why we need further debate on, the manual's backstory is still present on the page. The only thing I refute, is giving undue authority to it. -- The Entity (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is wrong to give the player character a canon gender. I think the word "allegedly" works well as a comprimise in the Eternal Champion's page for their name. Now, I don't think the devs had intended for us to be arguing over if the Nerevarine is male or not because they accidentally used a "he" for the Nerevarine. He can be used as a gender-neutral term depending on the situation.Analeah Oaksong (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the page, as it is right now, is fine. Tarponpet (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To Entity: The manual is a finalised product released alongside the game proper, of course it takes more precedent than a screenshot that may not have even been officially released/intended to seen by the public. ESO since retconned jungle Cyrodiil. The introduction of the manual refers to in-universe happenings. Character creation refers to a real-world gameplay mechanic that doesn't apply to the in-universe world so much as it allows the player to create a means in which they can interact with the world of Tamriel. Kirkbride may have knowledge of the inner workings of TES lore, but at the time he was not in development of the Dragonborn DLC and someone at Bethesda who made the decision to write that line was. I think the person who wrote that line takes precedent over someone who didn't. Additionally, if we're considering what's seen in-game as absolute truth, then that should include referring to the Nerevarine as male; it happened in the game, so it must be absolute canon, right?

I do, however, agree with you to a point regarding Neloth. Everything that we have seen in the franchise should be taken at face value, should be considered canon, unless stated otherwise or otherwise contradicted (clearly there are exceptions to this, like the joke Skyrim Very Special Edition).

This is a lot of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that an official piece of media doesn't align with your (not you specifically, but the player's) personal views (headcanon, ie: non-canon). The manual is authoritative. The manual hasn't been directly contradicted or retconned since its initial publishing. It's that simple. --Rezalon (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To Rezalon: There are numerous screenshots, and my point is this applies to countless promotional media or extra-in game media as a whole, they supply additional information. But per Todd, in your quote, they are tertiary to hearsay ingame, which itself is second to what the player actually sees. My ESo jungle point is meant to illustrate this. The Manual mentions a hypothetical EC named Talin, I go in game, name my character "John", make them a dark elf. Now I see evidence in game that disproves the manual. I do this to the applaud of the devs, the actual arbiters of canon, who who explicitly encourage this.

That line, per Kirkbride, was a mistake. And as Analeah points out, "he" can and has been used in the gender neutral. There's for more reason to believe the Nerevarine especially and in particular is of ambiguous gender and race beyond this. This can also go for just about every PC besides Cyrus the Restless. So no, we wouldn't consider the Nerevarine male. Beyond this being a development mistake and thus as canon as Horses flying in Skyrim is, unless we should add flying horses to the lore page of Skyrim's native animals? Further, this franchise as a whole plays games of npcs saying improvable things. Again is Tiber Septim from Atmora? Even if we ignore the doylist situation of Neloths mispoken line, and ignore that He can be gender neutral, why should we believe Neloth? This can go on and on. I still feel the page is fine as is, as Tarponpet also agrees. We're just talking in circles. Best leave the page as is.

Just to address a few more things, none of what I said was mental gymnastics, please, address my points rather than handwave them like this. That's rather rude.

The Manual is as authoritive as any other official publication outside the games, which is to say explicitly beneath what is in the games. I can make whatever character I want in the games, as can you. And the games establish several magical truths and uncertainties about the "Prisoner heroes" we play, that's also above the manual. The Manual's statement is also directly contradicted by several statements from devs on the nature of player choice. Etc, etc etc this is again talking in circles. -- The Entity (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

(←) I don't know what screenshots you're talking about other than the one which is on the page currently, which is pre-release. UESP's lore guidelines are clear in that pre-release info is strictly unofficial lore and its use in the lorespace is very limited.

The jungle is a false equivalency in this case. We know the Heroes have names. They aren't magically immune to having identities like the community sometimes espouses. Cyrus and Talym Rend are proof of this. They're just as much Heroes as every other protagonist. Furthermore, we know that details of the Heroes' lives are known in-universe. For instance, there was a biography of the Nerevarine published titled "Life and Times of the Nerevarine", proving that details of the Heroes' lives aren't hidden underneath some metaphysical fog related to their status as Prisoners.

The jungle is different. That was a definitive statement in some lorepieces being contradicted by what we see in-game. Happens all the time. We are given the agency to create our character in the games, but the fact remains that there is a canon identity to these Heroes absent of player decision. In naming the Eternal Champion, Bethesda is saying "You get to choose how to play this game". In giving us Talin, they said "But at the end of the day, this is who the canon character is." We know that player choice can be subverted in favor of the story Bethesda wants to tell, as my examples showed. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve only really skimmed this discussion so far, but I think this topic can be easily compromised. The very same Arena manual says the following in the Designer’s Note:

We did include an overall quest for those of you who wish to participate in the never ending battle of Light vs. Darkness. Failing this, however, only means that particular character or adventurer has met an unfortunate end, not that the game is over for the dozens of other characters you might otherwise have chosen to play. If you wish to become a thief who robs innocent nobles, fine. If you wish to play a warrior who makes it his mission in life to kill these thieves, that’s fine too. All we did is give the computer all the parameters of the Land, from NPCs and their motivations, to monsters and their treasures, to nobles and their quests. The rest is up to you.

The quest outlined in the introduction is to rescue the Emperor from the dimension in which Jagar Tharn has imprisoned him, by recovering the eight pieces of the Staff of Chaos.

Therefore, since the manual itself argues that each playthrough is some different yet valid iteration of the same character, I think we can say the Hero’s identity is chosen by us. In addition, the introduction from the Manual is not something prior to the events of the game, it is a retelling of the beginning of the game where Ria Silmane otherwise uses our chosen name. However, the introduction with Talin is the only official iteration of the character, and is the only backstory given to us by a canon source. Thus, I completely agree that Talin should be kept as the alleged (possible) name of the Eternal Champion. I see no reason to completely dismiss this official information (Mindtrait0r shows great examples of player choice sometimes coming second to Bethesda’s wishes), but I also see no reason to say that the Manual was presenting this as the actual canon name of the Hero. It's fair to say "Talin" was presented as an example, considering it’s a retelling of the beginning of the game and the designer note essentially says each playthrough is valid. I think saying the Eternal Champion may have been named Talin is better than both saying he wasn’t and saying he definitely was. “Allegedly known by the name Talin” like the page has now is best in my opinion. BananaKing5 (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Arena Screenshots