Lore talk:Amulet of Kings

Shezzar and the Chim-el Adabal

I don't know 100% sure, but I believe the whole story about Shezzar/Alessia/Amulet of Kings/ Akatosh is as follows. Please correct me when I'm wrong:

The only reference that ever existed that said there is a link between Alessia and Shezzar was the timline given to TIl by MK. (and other devs perhaps?) This article now seems to form the basis for Til's "history of Tamriel" section and UESP's timeline.

The orginal timeline entry, before Oblivion, was as follows:

The Amulet of Kings is a soulgem of immense power. The legend says that in 1E266, Shezarr (also known as Lorkhan), the missing sibling god of the Eight Divines, transformed the dying Empress Alessia into the first of the Cyrodiilic saints, and bound her soul into the Amulet of Kings, after which the amulet became a heirloom of the Cyrodiilic Empire. It was Reman I, the founder of the second Empire, who instituted the rites of becoming a Cyrodiilic Emperor, which included the ritual geas to the Amulet of Kings. With this ritual, every Emperor is soul-linked to the amulet. In the unfortunate event of an Emperor's demise, the Elder Council is instantly made aware of what has come to pass. --Til artifacts section

Or if you want UESP:

1E 266 — Empress Alessia Becomes First Saint Shezarr, the missing sibling god of the Eight Divines, arrives at the White Gold Tower in the Imperial City and transforms the dying Alessia into the first of the Cyrodilic saints. Thus Empress Alessia becomes the first gem in the Cyrodilic Amulet of Kings. The Elder Council elects Belharza the Man-Bull as the second Emperor of Cyrodiil. -UESP timeline

As you probably know Oblivion changed this and said that it was Akatosh, not Shezzar who gave the Amulet of Kings to Alessia. To many lorefans this became another one of Oblivion's plotholes when it comes to lore. Like he did with other plotholes, Mk also tried to correct this one. In the following topic on the ES forums he corrected this plothole by basically saying that Shezzar/Lorkhan and Akatosh are actually two sides of the same entity, perhaps comparable to the Christian Holy Trinity: http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=485557&hl=

As a result Til has updated their timeline accordingly:

The Apotheosis of Alessia. The earlier record says that Shezarr, the missing sibling god of the Eight Divines, arrives at the White Gold Tower in the Imperial City and transforms the dying Alessia into the first of the Cyrodiilic saints. Thus Empress Alessia becomes the first gem in the Amulet of Kings. While the book of Trials of Alessia states that Akatosh made a covenant with Alessia, he promises to protect the Empire of Men from the Daedric Princes of Oblivion as long as she and her descendants wear the Amulet of Kings and the magical dragonfire burn. This makes an interesting yet controversial connection (as revealed by Michael Kirkbride) that Akatosh is Shezarr/Lorkhan. Scholars are still debating this revelation to this day.

And before anyone edits/changes the Amulet of Kings entry, it might be a good idea to ask someone like Proweler or Temple-zero/Paw-Prints-in-the-mud about this. They can probably give you a better answer then I can. Apophis2412 09:18, 2 August 2008 (EDT)Apophis2412

Thanks for that, although there's still no definite source for Shezarr trapping Alessia's soul. Of course, we know from The Song of Pelinal that he was at Alessia's deathbed (and could well be an avatar of Shezarr) but that still doesn't prove the soul-trapping. I'd be very interested in finding a source for that. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 09:39, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Why was Akatosh there? Well Akatosh is a more important Divine than Shezzar, so it makes sense that the state religion would reflect that. Maybe it was something else, like the God of Time rewriting history as it happened. Because Akatosh and Lorkhan are the same person, but that doesn't mean they both appear in the same room at the same time in the same body. But what if Pelinal, who is an avatar of both gods at once (hences his madness and the hole in his chest) was there posthumously? Alessia saw the man thought to be the shezzarine, but everyone else just saw a Dragon bending over here. Akatosh 'bound together the bloody sinews of his heart' to give her the amulet. But Pelinal had a hole in his chest, like a receptacle. He came from the heavens in the form of a jewel whose facets could 'unfold into a man and cut her her jailors.' Maybe Pelinal walked to her deathbed, took Chim-el Adabal from his chest and gave it to her. All this should be reflected, if not exactly described, in the wording of the article.Temple-Zero 10:08, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

"amulet of kings is "soulgem of immense power" (varieties of faith). it has an "oversoul of emperors" (nu-mantia). 2+2=4 Alessia was bound to the amulet, if not soultrapped in the conventioanl way" -- Edit summary of TZ, for the record, links added --Benould^•T•C 12:24, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

- There are two things I'd like to point out and this is just me speculating over matters, I have absolutely no proof or anything of the sort. First, what if a Dragon Break occurred and in the first series of events, Shezzar transformed Alessia into the gem and in the second timeline, Akatosh filled the role of Shezzar in order to preserve time and transformed Alessia into the gem. Secondly, it is possible that Akatosh is the one who imbued the gem with his divine powers but it was Shezzar who bound Alessia's soul into the gem making her the first soul to "become" the gem (metaphorically, since the gem was empty before receiving her soul). Setting the possibility that Akatosh and Shezzar are possible on entity, it's highly unlikely that Shezzar is the one who made the gem since the gem is needed to light the "Dragonfires" at the Temple of the One and the shattering of the Amulet of Kings invoked a dragon avatar. Dragons are symbols of Akatsoh and not Shezzar. Also if Shezzar and Akatosh are two sides of the same coin that would cast doubt on Shezzar being Lorkhan since Akatosh is an Aedra and Lorkhan is a Daedra. That and one is absurdly evil (hence why the Tribunal's powers were weakened after using Lorkhan's energies to do good deeds) and the other is a benevolent savior of men and mer. — Unsigned comment by 93.126.133.124 (talk) at 03:34 on December 29, 2011

Reasons for Revert

I just undid three edits by Temple-Zero for reasons adequately explained in the previous great debate. Replacing a sourced statement with personal opinion is not acceptable and nobody even argued so during that previous discussion. An edit summary including "I'd rather have teeth pulled than quote Trials of St. Alessia" makes it clear that this is personal opinion. If you have a source for your information, please quote it. Otherwise, leave the existing text in place. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 14:32, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The sourced statements were wrong. You didn't revert personal opinion, you reverted every single one of my edits, including simple expansions (not speculations or contradictions) and mechanics improvements. My edit summaries do not indicate personal opinion, my edits indicate personal opinion (or not). The article prior to my edits had plenty of personal opinion, it just has the advantage of being there already and of having been properly formatted in its misinterpretations. Next time, if you revert with a wide brush, please move the old article to the talk page so we can decide what needs to be fixed. A good part of those changes had nothing to do with your objections. For the record, book 'The Amulet of Kings' is incredibly misleading, being in-game Septim propaganda that is contradicted by other sources. But that's Elder Scrolls for you.Temple-Zero 00:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)

I just reviewed the two versions of the article. The changes in my version are simply a (imho) clearer, more complete reiteration of what was already there and thus should be restored. The first added clause is common knowledge to anyone who has played Oblivion's main quest and the other added clause comes from 'Where You Where When the Dragon Broke?' That paragraph should be restored.

The first sentence of the current article is wrong or speculation, depending on your point of view. I replaced it with specific info on the origin of the Amulet. I forget if this can be known without sourcing OOG lore. I can check. The alternative to including this relevant info would be a complete lack of knowledge on that point. (By the way, I rewrote this paragraph because it was horribly biased and incomplete). I replaced it with more concrete historical information and expanded the history of the Amulet directly from source text, in this case from the Remanada and Sancre Tor. Both in-game Oblivion books that are actually useful.

As for the last paragraph... personal opinion? Seriously? I simply rewrote the account of the Oblivion Crisis so it was focused on the importance and movement of the Amulet, rather than the champion. I think we can all agree that I don't need to rigorously back up an account of Oblivion's MQ.

As I see, my edits were supported by more and better sources and were clearer and more complete. If your objection was that I did not intersperse the article with footnote references, all you had to do was request that I add them.Temple-Zero 00:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Citations Needed

I'd like a link/citation for the fact that the Amulet of King's is of Ayleid origin. As far as I know this was only speculation based on extra lore not in game written my writers/ex-writers for Bethesda. I'd not saying that lore is not canon, I'm just saying that I don't remember it ever stating that the Amulet of King's was of Ayleid origin. The Nu-Mantia Intercept is unclear of whether its saying the Ayleids were the masters of White-Gold Tower or of the Amulet of Kings, and no where does it state they created it. I suggest it be changed to say once that the amulet "may" be of Ayleid origin and the Nu-Mantia Intercept linked.

I also just noticed it said that that "Chim-el Adabal" is only the center gem, I'd like a link/citation for that as well to prove its not another name for the whole amulet. The Nu-Mantia Intercept refers to it as the Amulet of Kings, but does not say it is only the center gem. [1]

Jager 10:19, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Jager: nowhere in the cited texts does it allude to the fact that the Amulet was Ayleid in origin; and what logic would that have? --SerCenKing ^Talk 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

As far as it being only the soul gem, I'd point out that "Adabal" translates to "god stone" or "spirit stone", which would seem to suggest just a gem rather than the amulet. In addition, the Remanada says "And in the child's forehead was the Chim-el Adabal", recalling phrases from Tolkien about gems being bound on the brows of elves. If it was the whole amulet, surely it would be around the child Reman's neck rather than his head?

The bit about it being Ayleid though, yeah that's rubbish. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:01, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

I had forgotten adabal's translation, but that wasn't the problem I had with the current statement. It's been specifically written that the Chim-el Adabal is only the red centre gem excluding the other gems when none of the sources acually said this. I thought it was wrong to dismiss the fitting and the other gems as not part of the Chim-el Adabal, when we do not know when they were combined with the centre gem, and whether they are just cosmetic or serve some further purpose. I do see that it is unlikely to have a chain attached to it when on Reman's head though, and it does seem quite possible to just be the red diamond, but I think it is wrong to assume and have it written as definite.

Is it acceptable to still mention the Ayleid origin, but say something along the lines of "However it is may actually be of Ayleid origin" and then link to the Nu-Mantia Intercept? That way we still alert the users to the existence of that information, but don't say it is certain when it's unknown.

Also is it acceptable to refer to it "possibly" having something to do with Pelinal Whitestrake, due to the mention of red diamonds[2][3]in relation to him, and that he was at Alessia's death bed[4](when Shezzar was said to be previously, and to have done something with her and the Amulet - I'll have to find the source though)in the Song of Pelinal?

Thanks, Jager 06:23, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

For the Ayleid Origin bit, ask User:Temple-Zero, as he was the one that added the statement.

I still say that it's pretty clear the phrase "Chim-el Adabal" means the stone itself. It's a soul gem, not a soul necklace. On the other hand, I don't really care all that much one way or the other.

The necklace has something to do with Pelinal in the sense of Akatosh/Shezarr/Lorkhan/Pelinal all have some kind of equality/avatar relationship. That's not a topic for this page, IMHO. It's complicated enough as it is. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 08:56, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Are we allowed to link to the obscure texts on the TIL as sources? I saw some discussion about people's views onthe validity of these sources previously, and wasn't sure on if there was a rule against it since there isn't a link at present to the Nu-Mantia Intercept, which I would like to link to. I personally don't see why permission is needed from another user for changing the statement that it's of Ayleid origin from definite fact to a "maybe" though, when it's not known for sure.

About the Amulet of King's possible association with Pelinal, I was more referring to the specific parts in the Song of Pelinal where it a) says he "transformed" out of a red diamond given to Alessia, and b) that he has a red diamond in his chest instead of a heart(in the volumes I linked to). Because I think it's possible that the red diamond(s) mentioned is the same one as in the Amulet of Kings, rather than there being two red diamonds hanging around, or they could have the same origin/been made the same way. Do you think it would be fine to mention existence of the red diamond(s) mentioned in the Song of Pelinal, without going into detail about his relationship with Akatosh, Shezzar and Lorkhan(which is better suited for his own lore page)?

Would it be ok if I worked out and submitted an edit and if needed it can be further worked upon or reverted? I won't remove the information about the centre stone being the Chim-el Adabal, but may consider reworking the sentence. The reason I'm discusing this first is although I believe that these changes are neccessary to accurately portray the information we have, and to introduce another idea. But I wasn't sure if speculations on source's information were allowed to be added, although just as possibilities, due to the page's history.

Jager 04:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm not suggesting you DO ask for permission. Your original request was "I'd like a link/citation for the fact that the Amulet of King's is of Ayleid origin", so I'm suggesting you ask the person who put the statement there. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:20, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

I may be forgetting something, but the rationale for the Chim-el Adabal being an Ayleid stone is that it is a hitherto unknown artifact that has an elvish name. So unless the Wild Elves later on gave a name to the human crown jewel and it somehow became a common term, they must have named it before it was given to Alessia. Given that White Gold Tower is an Ayleid structure as defined by Nu-Mantia, patterned after the precedents of Red Mountain and Direnni Tower, the Ayleids would have to have controlled it in the same manner the humans did (although the Imperials worked the Dragonfires and Alessia's Dragonpact into the Amulet-Tower equation). Nu-Mantia claims that the Ayleids built White-Gold as a powerful tool, and that such Towers require a Stone to harness its energy. So either the Ayleids used an entirely different powerful, divine artifact that we've never heard of, or Akatosh/Shezarr (or maybe Pelinal, who is both)simply handed over the reins to the new owners.

And good eye, Jager. I've noticed the references to the 'gem whose facets could unsector and cut her jailors' as well, but I've never been sure of the exact implications of that. I mused noncommittally over it in a fan fic about Alessia, but I've never heard any solid conclusions drawn. If you like, you could use Pelinal's affiliation with the red gem to suggest that since sources disagree on whether Akatosh or Shezarr came to Alessia's bedside, it is possible that it was in fact just Pelinal time-travelling again, and speaking on behalf of both deities.Temple-Zero 20:09, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

I find the logic about the name somewhat faulty. Look at our own society: Pentium is a latinate word, but I'm pretty sure the Romans didn't invent the CPU. Go back a couple of hundred years and you'll find that Napoleon named the area centered on Genoa the "Ligurian Republic": Liguria being, again, a Roman term. He did it because all things Latin were cool, hip and trendy at that time and it was easy to fit in with what other young dudes were calling countries they'd conquered. In other words, the fact that something has an Ayleid name doesn't mean it was the Ayleids that created it. It could easily be that people were mistaken, or gave it what they thought was an appropriate name. More likely, the name was assigned later on to fit in with other ideas. Just look at the way a Major Religious Figure has had his birthday retconned to 25 December to fit in with pre-existing beliefs. Lastly, look at book 1 of the Song: "That he took the name "Pelinal" was passing strange, no matter his later sobriquets, which were many. That was an Elvish name, and Pelinal was a scourge on that race, and not much given to irony." There you have the protagonist of the story taking an Ayleid name but not being Ayleid himself.

As for the Pelinal connection, I'm still not sure about your reading of this. To me, it says that Kyne gave Perrif one thing (the gem) and another (the knight) - not that the latter came from the former. To invoke Vol 6 is to involve hearsay into the story: since eye-witnesses can't agree on what they saw or believed doesn't bode well for later lore. On reflection, the Pelinal connection probably warrants a mention, but I have no idea what would be the best thing to say on the subject. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 17:40, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

I don't think that the Ayleid is conclusive evidence. It was just the reason I originally formed the assumption, which is in turn supported by the description of White Gold Tower's function in Nu-Mantia. As for Pelinal, Vol 2 quite clearly describes Pelinal coming from the gem, and that fits with the image of Pelinal as something synthetic and alien, give elsewhere. I don't know if there is a connection the the Chim-el Adabal, and don't know if the article should mention it- I was just responding to Jager. Speaking of which, I was always under the impression that Pelinal's chest was the lack of an object shaped like a diamond, not a physical diamond.Temple-Zero 20:05, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

Reworking Sentences

I think that where it says "Martin was forced to smash the amulet", it needs to be reworked to something along the lines of "Martin smashed the amulet as it was the only way to defeat Mehrunes Dagon". Right now it sounds like someone else could have forced him to smash the Amulet.

Jager 10:34, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

I've rephrased the sentence, trying to strike a balance between the existing one and the one proposed. --SerCenKing ^Talk 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks SerCenKing.-Jager 06:23, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

The age of the amulet

Following a recent edit to the main article, I've detemined that the amulet is actually closer to 4000 years old than 2000. According to this the amulet was created in 1E 266. The First Era then lasted another 2654 years (ending in the year 1E 2920). The amulet then lasted through the Second Era (which lasted 897 years) and the Third Era (which lasted 433 years) until it's destruction at the end of the era which ushered in the Fourth Era. All told, that comes out to 3984 years (2654+897+433), so I corrected the Main Article to reflect this, but given variations in play time, an exact age seemed unreliable. -Dlarsh^{(Talk,Contribs)} 02:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that seems about right. I think whoever put it there got the two thousand idea from 3 era - 1 era = 2 era ≠ 2,000 years old. –Elliot ^talk 02:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

amulet in arena?

I wanna hear about the amulet in arena

here is what it says in the arena manual-

"Talin looked up, his face a mask of shock and outrage, "But what of the Amulet of Kings?"

"The Emperor is not dead. Only in the event of his demise would the Amulet warn the Elder Council. Tharn was meticulous in his planning. With time in the dimension in which the Emperor has been imprisoned running at a fraction of what it does here, it will be centuries before the true Emperor dies. And when he does, who will care? The people will have seen the glorious rule of Uriel Septim VII end generations in their past. Tharn must be stopped, here and now." Ria's face had a resolute set, one that if Talin had noticed, would have sent shivers of foreboding through his body." — Unsigned comment by Teotzlcoatl (talk • contribs) at 18:53 on 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oblivion Crisis Paragraph

Can someone who's good at writing touch that up a bit? It reads like a bullet-point list. — Unsigned comment by 185.94.192.87 (talk) at 01:16 on 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Dragon Blood requirement

Is there a source that explicitly states that only Dragonborn can wear the Amulet? Sources listed only seem to indicate that a Dragonborn is required to light the Dragonfires, not that only they can wear it, and other text and events surrounding the Amulet seem to imply that bearing the Amulet is more a matter of Embodying CHIM than it is about being Dragonborn. — Unsigned comment by Kirbonated Beverage (talk • contribs) at 22:12 on 19 May 2024‎ (UTC)

only those of the dragon blood were able to wear the Amulet of Kings and light the Dragonfires.Dcking20 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)