Lore talk:Mantellan Crux

Time Travelling Book

It is well known that ESO launched with many time travelling books, some of which were lightly edited to remove Third Era references but many of which were not. One of the main consequences of this was the shifting of the character Morian Zenas back to the Second Era, which is backed up by his appearance in the Crafting Motifs series. However, these books appearing in ESO created a good deal of nonsensical retcons, which have been handwaved away by the developers with reference to the known fact that Hermaeus Mora displaces books throughout time (e.g. the library within Gandranen Ruins in ESO). As such, we have tended to ignore a lot of these books by assuming time travel may have been involved, rather than rewriting whole swathes of Third Era history to account for these discrepancies.

This article is yet another example of ESO failing to double-check the books they copied into the game at launch. The ESO version of The Doors of Oblivion makes reference to the Mantellan Crux. Even if this realm existed in the Second Era, it is quite impossible that it would be referred to as the Mantellan Crux, given that it was named for the Mantella which only arrived here at the start of the Third Era. I have therefore moved the info about its earlier existence to the Notes section and added a line clarifying that time travel may be involved in this text's appearance in ESO. This line has since been removed on the basis of Morian's appearance in Crafting Motifs. Given what we know about these lazy retcons, I don't think this removal was warranted, as the devs seem keen to blame Hermaeus Mora for these timeline discrepancies. Thoughts? —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Legoless, we should not radically alter the lore just because ZOS wanted to reuse books. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree, another point regarding the legitimacy of The Doors of Oblivion is that in the ESO version, it mentions Celarus as the leader of Psijics and refers to Iachesis in the past-tense, which is incompatible with in-game events per the whole Summerset DLC. Celarus became the leader of the Psijics in 3E 110. Retconning the events of Daggerfall and the whole history of the Mantella being created by Zurin and etc because of one copy-pasted book is just silly. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that Doors of Oblivion makes no sense in 2e, even with the battlespire section removed, I don't think we can use the time travelling book as an excuse. The original 13 crafting motifs are all telling the exact same story, with the same characters, as Doors of Oblivion from a slightly different perspective. The dev's definitely messed up, but this isn't a mess up that can be easily explained away with a time travelling book, since they also firmly date all the events to have happened around 2e431 thanks to the motifs. Jacksol (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should just avoid mentioning Doors of Oblivion at all. We know the Crux didn't exist until the beginning of the Third era, why bother mentioning Doors of Oblivion at all? We know the inclusion of the Mantella in ESO's version of the book is a mistake. Just ignore the inconsistency. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting inconsistencies in some form so that readers won't be confused by its mention in ESO. —⁠Legoless (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the time travelling book explanation doesn't apply here at all. Leaving it as it is right now with the added context of the timeline inaccuracies is the best bet IMO, as it still mentions the issue without apply a lot of speculation or ignoring the context presented in ESO. Jacksol (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(←) The current revision of this note seems like a good compromise to me, mentioning the time travel excuse but also the contradictory Second Era sources that mention Morian Zenas. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is honestly becoming way too "gameplay" style in terms of including what types of enemies are there in-game, and honestly, the notes section comes off as a "gotcha" style note. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have any qualms with the mobs stuff, except maybe it could be integrated better into the page. The thing that really rubs me the wrong way is the "gotcha" style note at the beginning. It reads to me like we are lending more credence to what is an obvious error on ZOS' behalf, just because they forgot to remove the mention of the Mantella Crux in the Doors of Oblivion book amongst the numerous other errors already mentioned. We should still definitely note the inconsistency, but not in a way that implies that the error (that the Mentella Crux existed before Zurin blasted the Mentella into Aetherius) is more correct than what we are told in Daggerfall and related lorebooks, like how it is worded now. I think the "Stories and books mentioning the realm predate the creation of the Mantella that powered Numidium" is already enough in my opinion and carries across the same sentiments. We needn't mention specific time travelling books or timeline inconsistencies at all. Thal-J (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TJ. We shouldn't be speculating on how the book got there, especially when we have to qualify our explanations with 'except this thing found in game, which might disprove this'. Saying that mentions of the Mantellan Crux can be found prior to it's creation is enough. Jacksol (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)