Lore talk:CHIM

Notes on Article

This is a very, very tricky subject. No doubt any loremasters who have read this are thinking, "How can they have an article about CHIM and not talk about A, B, C, D ... and Z?" I've already talked to a few people who believe a page on CHIM is an "all or nothing" proposal.

I made the page because I've seen many people here and in the forums who don't understand what CHIM is. It's an in-game TES invention, and one which is not immediately intuitive, so I feel a page for it is needed.

However, I also wanted to abide by the lore guidelines; specifically, our policy on Citations in Lore to out-of-game content (OOG). As the guidelines say, we're not here to document every little thing in OOG; however, we can and should use OOG written by game developers as needed to explain in-game material. The in-game references to CHIM are relatively meager, and I didn't feel that every little bit of the relatively abundant OOG information on CHIM was necessary to explain those references.

It's important to keep in mind the fallibility of OOG. As described in the guidelines, officially approved out-of-game materials (for example, game manuals, TES novels, the Pocket Guides, etc.) are treated here as in-game materials. So OOG is, by definition, material which has not been officially approved by Bethesda. While much of it is very interesting, we must also accept the possibility that some OOG is out-of-game for a reason: there could be aspects of it which were consciously rejected by Bethesda decision-makers at some point. We have to keep in mind that the concept of CHIM as Bethesda has allowed it to be introduced into the games may not perfectly match the concept of CHIM as it has been articulated in OOG. The point is, for each piece of OOG we rely upon, our risk of error increases. So there's some important reliability considerations behind our policy; the distinction between in-game content and OOG is not arbitrary. I included a lot of OOG in this article as it stands; adding more is not out of the question, but it should be carefully considered.

By the way, I'm not sure who the author of "The Walking Ways" is (he/she may not be a game developer), but it's one of TIL's most prominent articles which analyzes this subject (I know I've read it multiple times over the last few years), and it doesn't seem to have garnered any criticism or controversy, so a link to it seemed appropriate.

So, the goal here is not to replace The Imperial Library (TIL), which is fundamentally better suited to documenting and analyzing OOG, but to give a summary of the in-game mentions of CHIM, while still using OOG as needed to clarify those remarks. Essentially, it's a glorified redirect to TIL - a quick and dirty explanation for the mildly curious, with external links to TIL for the substantially curious.

Still, I know that where I drew the line between what's worth mentioning about CHIM and what's not worth mentioning may not be where everyone in the community would like it to be. I also know that I know nothing; I may have omitted information that is truly essential to understanding the topic, and I may have misstated something along the way. That's why I added the stub tag. Many people will most likely seek to expand or change the page in the future. I hope that when this happens, any concerned parties can have a thoughtful and sincere discussion about the scope of the page and reach a consensus amicably.

Finally, you may also be thinking, "How could they have a page on CHIM and not have one on, say, the Towers?" Patience. One page at a time.

Edit- Oh, and I wasn't sure what to do with the trail. Lore:Way of the Voice is similar in that it is a "concept page"; it trails back to magic. That might be the best way to categorize this. It could certainly be viewed as a type of magical study, I suppose. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:05, 29 March 2013 (GMT)

Cyrodiil was never a jungle

Quote "#ESO's Cyrodiil is based on current Tamriel lore. The original "endless jungle" description is considered a transcription error."

Official word here: https://twitter.com/TESOnline/status/265849694708719616

The game is set in a time when Cyrodiil would have been a jungle, yet it is not a jungle. I don't know how or if this information should affect the article. I just thought it was worth pointing out so that those interested in keeping the site "lore-compliant" could make the appropriate changes if they thought it should be done. I won't butcher an article on a topic I know little to nothing about, but I don't mind passing along information to those better suited to the task. — Unsigned comment by 72.84.255.212 (talk) at 06:49 on 7 July 2013‎

Cyrodiil still might have been a jungle

When Talos used CHIM he could retroactively change it so that it was never a jungle, and texts from alternative timeline would be left just like it happened before when Dragonbreak or other time warp would happen, not to mention that there are several references to time being fractured in TESO, including book called "Ruminations on the Elder Scrolls" which was written in 4th era being in TESO and not only that, it also comes with a note (Note by Ancestor Moth Brother Quintus Nerevelus: Found this at the back of the library stacks behind the Scroll of Rhunen. It had obviously been there a long time, yet the printer's sigil notes its publication date as "4E 195." This is obviously a transcription error. I think.) They pretty much pointed out that transcription error is how scholars of Nirn try to explain timeline inconsistencies. — Unsigned comment by Lorkhatosh (talk • contribs) at 21:45 on 26 May 2014 (GMT)

Pronunciation

In ESO, based on some NPC dialogue in Cyrodiil (the various warlords), the way they pronounce CHIM is chim or /tʃim/. Should this be changed to reflect that? Contraptions (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's an odd one that. Loremaster Lawrence Schick has used that same pronunciation himself, but ZOS seem to have completely ignored the fact that Kirkbride already said years ago that its pronunciation is KIM. I assume CHIM is a Kirkbridian creation, so I would take his pronunciation over ZOS's retconning. --Enodoc (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Every source on the KIM pronunciation is out-of-game MK monkey lore as far as I can tell. Maybe a note should be added explaining the more popular renditions of the word? I agree with using the ESO one in the opening, despite the contentiousness of the warlord pronunciation. —Legoless (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Including that Cyrodiil was not a jungle in the Second Era.

In ESO (which takes place in 2E582/3) Cyrodiil was already not a jungle. This might be explained by Talos retroactively changing it to plains, but it's worth noting in the article that during the Second Era there was no jungle and that this raises doubt with the claim it was a jungle until the Third Era. NOTE: This is different from the existing line saying that it was not a jungle during the THIRD Era, which would be in line with Talos changing it at the start of the third era. Buaf (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Amended the article by inserting that it was not a jungle in the Second Era according to ESO, and added the word "alleged" to the climate shift later on. If someone can add a sentence WITH a source that the CHIM/change was retro active you'll be doing this page a service.Buaf (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Subtropical Cyrodiil: A Speculation is the ESO text covering the discrepancy, so since that book is referenced I'm not sure anything else is required, but for clarity we could keep the Second Era Cyrodiil reference and just shift it to the end of the paragraph, next to the existing reference. There is no in-game reference for CHIM being the cause of the change. --Enodoc (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That's what I originally did before my edit was undone multiple times, that's why this section was created. If someone wants to challenge it/remove it again they should discuss it here.Buaf (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The retcon is meant to completely remove the thought that it ever was a jungle. The Cyrodiil page has the more up-to-date wording in the style of "while there are claims it is/was a jungle, it is a temperate climate". This page is difficult to reconcile with that, though given the only source for the CHIM transformation of Cyrodiil is Kirkbride, its easy enough to just delete it as irrelevant, or move it to the notes. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not completely; Phrastus' retcon is there to remove the thought that it was ever a jungle, but Cinnabar's retcon exists to say that it was a jungle but changed over time (ie, not immediately). Both don't mention CHIM though, so shifting down to Notes may still be best. --Enodoc (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(←) From the real life chronology of the sources about climate and the change of climate, or lack of it by observation, it probably is only a mistake done by Bethesda, or change of mind possibly, between the production of Redguard and the production of Oblivion. It might still be rationalised or explained away by the fact that the real world meaning of the word "jungle" has varied a bit with the centuries, from a general reference to more or less forested and uninhabited areas (originally in India) to the modern meaning of a tropical dense forest. —MortenOSlash (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There's also the Craglorn story line in which the Serpent shows images of a Cyrodiilic jungle talking about how long ago possibly in a past worldshed it was a jungle. I believe shifting down to notes, there's no in game up to date source to suggest it's CHIM, and the only sources that mention that Tiber Septim/Talos changed it are from Heimskr the mad priest and one line in Mankar Cameron's books, both of which could be attributed to building off of the error.Buaf (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

relies on unofficial source & personal interpretation

hello i cant verify most of the page with official sources. most refs dont mention chim or they point to old anonymous forum posts

for example the bit at the start about how chim "is best understood" points to those posts, but i thought unofficial stuff wasnt supposed to be used for new facts?

iirc there are only two real official sources here that say chim

• lessons of vivec
  • called secret syllable of royalty (unclear if only royals know or means royalty)
  • used with other magic words (not usable since it needs original research to interpret)
• camorans commentaries
  • at top of volume like other magic words, but speculative to say whole volumes about it (could be there to be mysterious like the letters at top of chapters in koran)
  • those who know it apparently "can change the land", somehow related to "home of the red king once jungled", but open to interpretation and a leap to say it means an epiphany that gives superpowers over all reality
  • part of "towers of CHIM-EL GHARJYG" but unclear if relevant or what it means

page also mentions eso but not specific. could use more from eso, for example scroll, temple, gate of chim, chim-el adabal

anyway can we at least be clear about what is interpretive/unofficial and keep the opening parts to official facts, like "book x says y"? Gazorpo (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

update: i made a draft that effectively just removes interpretation/speculation and refs with sources that dont say chim or use unofficial sources for new facts, and adds more refs, and then removes anything without refs. any objections? https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User:Gazorpo/Sandbox&oldid=2619414 Gazorpo (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

update 2: ok no feedback even on discord but the policies say be bold so im going for it Gazorpo (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, not all editors are on the wiki or Discord every day; it is normally customary to allow several days (perhaps a week) for others to notice and comment on new proposals, especially when they involve large-scale changes to existing articles such as this one. I'm not saying you necessarily did anything wrong here, just that lack of feedback in less than 36 hours is not necessarily an indication that no one has anything to say about this matter. — Wolfborn^(Howl) 09:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ya thank you i just saw the policy to be bold so after two days w/o a peep i thought why not Gazorpo (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ok i kept being bold and added a bunch more info from official sources. i wanted to mention that unofficial forum post in the notes but unfortunately couldnt verify the post existed Gazorpo (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

hi jimeee thank you for your feedback in your edit summary, can you point at what is so unclear to you that can be clarified directly with an official source and what you find irrelevant? i thought the names of things with "chim" was relevant because the word and its relation to change probably came from "chimera" but i would be happy to take that section out, does that help you? Gazorpo (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(←) I have reviewed Gazorpo's proposed changes and have two observations to make:

Firstly, the deletion of the majority of the information from the page is not a constructive change in my opinion. It is true that many of the sources do not mention the word "CHIM" directly, but that is because a lot of these texts are purposefully esoteric and require a high degree of familiarity with the topic and related concepts. I have gone through the list of requested citations from Gazorpo and filled in what I could. I believe the claim that much of this info is unverifiable is an exaggeration. For instance, it is well-known who the "Red King Once Jungled" refers to, and I have added the appropriate citation to confirm this. Similarly, Black Book: Waking Dreams does not use the word CHIM but seems to discuss mantlings and the godhead—to me, at least, the subject matter should be obvious from this. I have left the cleanup tag and remaining {{fact}} tags intact. Gazorpo is correct to point out that our citations are/were lacking, but that does not mean we shouldn't take the current version of the page in good faith and try to improve the sourcing before deleting its contents entirely.

Secondarily, the aversion to this article's use of unofficial sources is misplaced. This topic requires external sources from developers to clarify a lot of the official texts, and we have policies in place to allow the use of these unofficial sources for exactly that purpose. The two UOL sources on this page are well-regarded developer texts and their use should not be controversial in my mind. That said, use of unofficial material is always dealt with on a case-by-case basis, so their use on this article is always open to discussion.

This is a difficult topic to cover and requires a degree of familiarity with texts that are quite difficult to read and discern meaning from. I would be hesitant to start stripping down what we have on the basis of verifiability when it seems to me that the majority of the page's contents is correct. —⁠Legoless (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your input, i did add back as much info from sources i could verify plus new stuff but oh well. assuming good faith is for users not sources, or else we wouldnt have references

theres only 1 unofficial source (the 2nd is inside the 1st), but the stuff on the state of chim (not just the word) isnt even in that forum link, and the text that is there doesnt match imperial library's. and again theres no evidence here its from a dev. anyway "Using solely UOL to support definitive statements of fact should be avoided" so shouldnt fact statements with only uol be cut?

anyway im getting bad vibes so i'll leave it to others to fix the page if they care to Gazorpo (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

also i dont see anything about a "red king" in the source you gave for that Gazorpo (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith on the part of the editors who added that info to the page. As I said, I've left your {{fact}} tags intact for further clarification. The use of UOL sourcing on this page is allowable as we are not relying solely on it.

Regarding the Red King Once Jungled, the citation I added states: "I breathe now, in royalty [CHIM], and reshape this land which is mine. I do this for you, Red Legions, for I love you." According to Heimskr, Talos used CHIM to remove the jungles from Cyrodiil. This is a direct explanation of the line from the Commentaries you are questioning. If you want to talk bad vibes, I'm getting a general vibe of obstinance from you when it comes to trying to understand the source material here. If you are going to be questioning the veracity of information on the article, please engage with the subject matter rather than relying on Ctrl+F for specific terms. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

look it seems like a likely interpretation now that youve explained it, but i didnt get that from just a link to everything the character says. and i thought wikis like this are for giving verifiably sourced facts, not interpretations? might be nice to put interpretive details in notes and not the body. also would be nice if you assumed good faith for me and not just editors when they omit sources. as for the unofficial "source" its solely relied on for several statements, plus the chim part of statements that just tag on other info with refs so the whole statement looks legit at a glance Gazorpo (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Waking Dreams, there's really no reason to think it's talking about CHIM. Mantling is a separate concept to CHIM; a key issue with this whole topic is presumptions and biases are obfuscating what the lore actually says (or doesn't say) on the topic, much the same as the prior major version of the Shezarrine page. "The subject matter should be obvious from this" is not a source nor a detailed conjecture. Just my $0.2. Serithi (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

CHIM as Divine Hypnagogia

"Just wanna say because I never think I did, the whole "it was all just a dream" avenue is completely missing the point. Consider your lucid dreams, if you've been lucky enough to have ever had one. Then think again before you dismiss the the idea of Divine Hypnagogia. If you get it (or care to) then mull it over until it punches the back of your eyeballs.

No wonder it's hard to retain CHIM. Such... violence."

- On CHIM making Tamriel boring because it makes it "all a dream" (2011-01-18)

I noticed that Michael Kirkbride seems to have confirmed the idea that CHIM is akin to a lucid dream. I think mentioning this quote would help elucidate what achieving CHIM actually does to the mortal, since "experiences an ineffable sense of the godhead, which is what allows for escape from all known restrictions" is a tad bit esoteric. I was thinking of adding a note such as:

In a response to a question about The Elder Scrolls franchise being "all a dream", former Bethesda developer Michael Kirkbride likened achieving CHIM to lucid dreaming, calling it "Divine Hypnagogia".[UOL 4] Hypnagogia is described as the transitional state between wakefulness and sleep, during which lucid dreams may occur. Lucid dreaming is when somebody realizes they are in a dream, and is commonly related with the ability to control the dream in some way.

Given this note uses UOL, and is also not as "directly from the source" as I normally try to be, I wanted to see if others agree with the note before I add anything? To clarify, this would be a note and the "ineffable sense" quote would remain. BananaKing5 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea, seems fine as an UOL note.--ErfXploded (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worth nothing this is also literally how Vivec describes Godhood in Morrowind. Hypnagogia is the term for the state between wakefullness and sleep, to quote its' wiki:

"Hypnagogia is the transitional state from wakefulness to sleep, also defined as the waning state of consciousness during the onset of sleep. "

And then, to quote Vivec's Morrowind Dialogue:

to be a god:

"It is a bit like being at once awake and asleep. Awake, I am here with you, thinking and talking. Asleep, I am very, very busy. Perhaps for other gods, the completely immortal ones, it is only like that being asleep. Out of time. Me, I exist at once inside of time and outside of it."

That last bit about Time is also interesting, if you read "Thief Goes to Cyrodiil":

"Veloth describes the Psijic Endeavor as a process of glorious apotheosis, where time itself is bent inward and outward into 'a shape that is always new'. Those who can attain this state, called chim"

Interesting coincidences--The Entity (talk)

I always thought Vivec wasn’t describing CHIM here, but instead was referring to his godhood from the Heart of Lorkhan. He said the other gods may be all the way asleep, in the god place. But the similarities surrounding what is said about sleep and time are very interesting indeed. Perhaps I was wrong and Vivec did mean CHIM. BananaKing5 (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Anu as the Godhead

On the Lore:Godhead page, Anu is mentioned in a note that they share similarities. This page directly conflates them, but I don't think either of the references provided adequately make that connection. Could someone point me to what they think proves the connection? Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You are likely already aware of the immediate similarities but for the benefit of establishing it more firmly I'll go over why and how Anu is the Godhead.

To start with Anu is firmly established outright by Monomyth to be the primal origin of everything, even Padomay is simply an extension of it, per Yokudan and Altmeri Myth.

"Anu encompassed, and encompasses, all things. So that he might know himself he created Anuiel, his soul and the soul of all things. Anuiel, as all souls, was given to self-reflection, and for this he needed to differentiate between his forms, attributes, and intellects. Thus was born Sithis, who was the sum of all the limitations Anuiel would utilize to ponder himself. Anuiel, who was the soul of all things, therefore became many things, and this interplay was and is the Aurbis." - Monomyth

"Satak was First Serpent, the Snake who came Before, and all the worlds to come rested in the glimmer of its scales. - but of course there was nothing outside the First Serpent, so aid had to come from inside it; this was Akel, the Hungry Stomach - Pretty soon Akel caused Satak to bite its own heart and that was the end. The hunger, though, refused to stop, even in death, and so the First Serpent shed its skin to begin anew" - Monomyth

All Tamrielic religions begin the same. Man or mer, things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other. These twin forces go by many names: Anu-Padomay, Anuiel-Sithis, Ak-El, Satak-Akel, Is-Is Not. Anuiel is the Everlasting Ineffable Light, Sithis is the Corrupting Inexpressible Action. In the middle is the Gray Maybe ('Nirn' in the Ehlnofex).

All faiths roughly agree, Padomay/Sithis represents a Limitation/Lack, and is an extension of Anu, that is all that IS. Padomay best, is what IS NOT, and so is illusionary. Various other sources agree with this and take it to its' natural conclusion, Anu is the sole progenitor. This is the findings of Sotha Sil and Vivec whom have interacted with Lorkhan's Heart

"Our father, Sotha Sil, would have us know the truth: there is no Padomay. Padomay is the absence of value. The lack. A ghost that vanishes at first light. A Nothing. There is only Anu, sundered and known by many names, possessing many faces. The one."

"There is only one name that is not Name. Seht, the convergent Clockwork God, whose will pumps like a piston into both "then" and "after." Sotha Sil, Father of Mystery, whose heart drives the Wheels Eternal and whose blood oils the All-Axle."

"Is there anything so sacred as the wheel? Like Tamriel Final, the wheel both moves and does not move. Anuvanna'si. The axle sleeps" - Truth in Sequence

This is also where the typical "Dreamer" motif associated with the Godhead comes up. It is older than this text, but it's notably emphasized nonetheless. Here is Vivec's account on Anu:

"This is clearly attested by ANU and his double, which love knows never really happened." - Lesson 35

Now lastly here is the greatest hint at their connection, Anuad's beginning of the worlds having life, preceeded by Anu's sleep

"Anu, grieving, hid himself in the sun and slept. - Meanwhile, life sprang up on the twelve worlds of creation and flourished." - Anuad

Anu is consistently placed as the origin place for all. The Godhead is tied to that. Even more, both Anu and the Godhead are tied to the Stars by in game sources.

" The blood of Anu became the stars. " - Anuad

"The eyes, once bleached by falling stars of utmost revelation, will forever see the faint insight drawn by the overwhelming question, as only the True Enquiry shapes the edge of thought. The rest is vulgar fiction, attempts to impose order on the consensus mantlings of an uncaring godhead. First," - Waking Dreams

Now these are all strong similarities. There is one more minor proof.

Here is Kirkbride directly stating the Godhead is Anu:

"Anu"

"That's not a term"

"That's the Amaranth"

"Anew"

"Amaranth anon Anew AE I, which is said to have occupied the passageways of heaven and earth, because everyone above and below asks Amaranth anon Anew AE I if they cannot find the passage. Amaranth anon Anew AE I is the Godhead who caused to be visible. Amaranth anon Anew AE I stands as a post at the turning point. The others say of Amaranth anon Anew AE I the post: "The one and one (an inelegant numner) who crosses the middle of the Z the Centrex without calm, may his name be I and no other, for he takes up the center of it in sleep. The path of the stars of the sky should be kept unchanged but will not, for he dreams in the sun and now has dreamed of orphans, anon Magne-Ge, the colors he still wishes to dream."

"You wanted to know who it was. I hid it a long time ago when I hid the Anew in the sun." - (Michael Kirkbride)

Anu is indeed the Godhead. The Entity (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Entity that the evidence is very clear that there isn't any contradiction. Anu is pretty unambiguously the Godhead. Though I think we're still missing that smoking gun post on our MK posts lists, though it's well documented elsewhere. Tarponpet (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There are those in-universe who believe Anu was never an actual thing and that Sithis created the Aurbis, which goes against Anu's role as a sole creator being roughly agreed by all cultures. Mindtrait0r (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sithis/Padomay is as Monomyth described, regarded as the original creator. But this is because Padomay is Change, that is understood to literally be "Corrupting Inexpressible Action". Padomay is a literal term for Anu doing. This is in fact where his original Ehlnofex name originates to start with, according to some UOL sources.

"It is interesting to note that their original views were very unorthodox for Altmer, and thus their exile from Alinor. These views included the suggestion that Anu's son, the Time Dragon, was formed in reaction to Padhome's influence. In effect, Anu had finally done something. This inconceivable effect gave rise to an equally inconceivable cause, and so PSJJJJ was named and the Order eventually took his name." - Vehk's Teaching

""...appropriately, Padomay is just as ineffable an entity as Anu. This is how the Psijiic Order treats him, at least. His original (Aldmeris? Ehlnofex?) name is PSJJJJ, which is and was meant to be unpronounceable. The Order was founded and organized to divine Padomay's eternal and ever-changing mystery. "Sithis" is a corruption of "Psijii" which, in turn, was a derivation of the high concept PSJJJJ." - Redguard Forum Madness

Moving on from UOL, No cultures truly regard Anu as nonexistent, only some regard Anu's eternal Stasis as "Nothing", insofar as everything at once is effectivelly nothing, philosophically. The Dunmeri Creation myth notes this.

"Sithis is the start of the house. Before him was nothing, but the foolish Altmer have names for and revere this nothing. That is because they are lazy slaves. Indeed, from the Sermons, 'stasis asks merely for itself, which is nothing.'" - Sithis

Nothing that preceeded Sithis is Stasis, is Anu, and the Argonians still acknowledge the "Nothing" (Anu) that preceeds Sithis when they're not acknowleding Anu outright in the form of Atak (As seen in Children of the Root). Anu remains the origin of all things, and is the Godhead. In fact Anu is presented as an Egg that is the origin of everything, in which Sithis breaks open by striking it. This is why the Hist call Sithis "Exact-Egg-Cracker" (Per older renditions of Monomyth, French translations, and MK UOL stuff like Vehks teaching)

"Cultural exchange with the Kothringi, maybe? But that would set the origins of Kothringi culture farther back than we thought. As for the egg, it's metaphorical. Eggs represent beginnings. So, a depiction of Sithis consuming some origin? Tough to say."" - Nest of Shadows Antiquity (depicting Sithis biting open an Egg)

Anu is and remains the origin point, Sithis/Padomay is at most that urge (In the case of Yoku myth, literally Satak/Anu's stomach) that allows Possibility, an extension of Anu (which is again, everything, and is explicitly named Godhead) The Entity (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm in the minority on this I guess but I just think the page is stating things too authoritatively. The Godhead's existence is challenged by in-universe texts, like The Anuad which quite explicitly attests to Padomay being an entirely separate being from Anu and attests to both Anu and Padomay having personalities rather than either being an expressionless force of nature. I acknowledge that there are probably more sources that depict them as forces of nature, but I don't think we choose one option as the correct one. And there's the French Monomyth Yokudan Worldskin tale which has Anu and Padomay, and the combination of those two (presumably something like the Godhead per your previous points about Padomay being the same as Anu, just the name for when there's action) as Akatosh. This was also on the Bethesda website so it isn't limited to the French translation. The Commentaries on the Mysterium Xarxes refers to the Godhead at one point and then later refers to Anu, why the switch up in terminology if he believes them to be the same being? That's not a super strong point but it is there.

I'm not trying to argue that Anu isn't the Godhead, but there's reasons to doubt it at least and I think the wiki should leave ambiguity where thing's aren't certain. We've relegated combinations of hints/metaphors in the text and MK quotes to the Notes section in the past, like with Pelinal being a cyborg from the future. There's lines you can pull from the text that could be argued to hint at that and MK himself has said it is true and was his intention when writing the books, but we don't include that as a fact on the wiki, rather including it as a note that Kirkbride said it and it may be alluded to in the texts. I think Anu=Godhead should be something similar. While the existence of the Godhead isn't really relevant to this page, since CHIM as a concept depends on it, the Godhead's identity is not as crucial.

Anyway, I don't want this to come off like a crusade against MK metaphysics in the lorespace. I just have some concerns is all. Thanks for taking the time to read. Mindtrait0r (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll definitely have to look more into the sources The Entity provided because it looks like I am wrong, but I've always thought Anu and the Godhead were different, at least at first. Padomay and Anu were entirely separate, on account of their mixed blood making the Aedra and Padomay's blood making the Daedra, their rivalry over Nir, and the Bladesongs of Boethiah showing them fighting. Meanwhile, the Godhead was beyond even them, being the Dreamer of everything. At some point, Anu achieved Amaranth and became the New Dreamer, and so became the Godhead where he wasn't before. Thus, "Anu", as in the source of Anuiel and the opposite of Padomay, and "Anu the Everything" were the same entity but referring to pre- and post-Amaranth. That said, Anu and Padomay have always said to be forces of nature that shouldn't be personified IIRC (same with Sithis, which is what made the Aspect of Sithis in ESO quite interesting to me), so if they are forces of nature then these personified relationships are all metaphor anyway. Nonetheless, I'm rather neutral on the mention of Anu as the Godhead in this article, since it isn't strictly necessary to name-drop Anu here, but also "Anu the Everything" was always what I understood the New Dreamer, and thus "God" in CHIM, to be anyway. BananaKing5 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)