While there are a couple of novels, I have not read them. I asked one of the guys responsible for the core worldbuilding about them once, and he said he couldn’t get past the galley proofs so… not a high recommendation lmao

I learned from the source. The in-game texts. 99% of the lore you can find in the wikis is whatever random person’s subjective interpretation of those in-game texts. It’s better to read through them directly and come to your own conclusions.

No I’m just a nerd who reads a lot

I actually can’t stand fudgemuppet, dude takes 40 mins to say what could (and should) be said in 5

They’re literally all-powerful gods that reign over their own worlds

Kind of but not really. Their “worlds” are just their true bodies. They are all-powerful in the sense that you are all-powerful compared to the bacteria living in your gut, which is to say that they’re not really. They have entirely finite power even within and over their own domains.

See: the Champion of Cyrodiil (in addition to teams of entirely normal people) invading Dagon’s Oblivion gates and shutting them down. An all-powerful god would simply vaporize you the moment you tried to oppose him in his domain. Or forcibly convert you into a warrior of his armies. Or instantly transform all your bones into breadsticks and laugh as you cronched into a pile on the floor–but don’t worry, he decided not to give you permission to die. Enjoy being a breadcrumb puddle.

that are quite possibly the same size as, if not bigger than Nirn.

Kind of a misunderstanding of the cosmology. Nirn is a finite round planet floating in (something equivalent to) space. The planes of Oblivion are infinite planes forced into the rough appearance of round planets by mortals whose minds can’t comprehend infinity. They’re not comparable to Nirn because they aren’t even a similar type of cosmic structure, they only appear similar through the very limited eyes of mortals.

I don’t think we can apply our conventions of sex and biology to them lol.

This is definitely true though. I’m personally in the school of thought that Daedric Princes aren’t really people the way that, for example, the Tribunal’s components are, or for a real world example the way the Greek gods are. The Daedric Princes are concepts personified, or maybe even concepts forced into an anthropomorphic shape by uncomprehending mortal eyes, the same way the Planes of Oblivion will appear like finite round planets from afar.

Mehrunes Dagon isn’t, I would argue, a guy who likes to destroy things. Mehrunes Dagon is destruction. He’s not a bad guy because he’s not a guy at all. Mehrunes Dagon enacts destruction and change the same way a hurricane does–not purposefully, not with malice, not even consciously in the same way a human can. Mehrunes Dagon simply, the same way you or I breathe, destroys.

That isn’t to say that they are all the concept of their spheres. Hypothetically destroying Mehrunes Dagon wouldn’t remove the concept of destruction from the universe. But Mehrunes Dagon is the being representing–made of, perhaps–that concept as it exists in the foundation of the universe.

The universe which I might add is a song, dreamt by the unimaginable and inconceivable higher-dimensional godhead. But that’s a topic for nerds nerdier than I.

Best I can offer is $10 for one of ya finger bones. I’m a nice guy though so you can pick which one. Deal?

If the only animal corpses anyone ate was euthanized pet remains and the practice was somehow free of influencing the unnecessary euthanization of more pets, I can’t say I care. Same way I don’t really care if people eat roadkill or animal products from a dumpster. I’m not going to do it, I don’t see these things as food. And I think there’s a minuscule harm done in the proliferation of the perception of these things as food. But that harm is negligible in the face of animal agriculture which is my primary concern.

What part of my reference to it as animal abuse sounds like an endorsement of the practice? I’m not sure about you, but personally I consider animal abuse to be unacceptable.

But then you’re still causing plants pain by farming and eating them. Isn’t that argument no different than saying if you believe that harming animals causes them pain, you should be in favor of eating the ones that are hunted because farming them causes more pain?

If you insist on animal abuse then you should do it through hunting rather than factory farming precisely because of the diminished amount of suffering caused. But it’s still more suffering than would be caused by just eating plants so I’m not sure I understand your point

If you actually believe harming plants causes them pain and that that is bad, you should be vegan. Animal agriculture harms far, far more plants than any plant agriculture ever could.

Not only do you jump to an insane straw man.

It wasn’t an insane strawman though? It was literally the argument they made. Something has to die for you to eat, therefore it doesn’t matter how many things you kill or how necessary those deaths are. The fact that you must kill something absolves you of any guilt for any amount of killing, is the ridiculous argument the person made (and which carnists often make) which we are making fun of for being obviously evil and wrong.

Exactly! In English! Which this person does not know!

You seem to be getting pretty confused here. We’re talking about the literal meanings, that is to say the ones that someone who doesn’t have a strong grasp of English should know. Metaphors and idioms and so on are famously difficult for those without a strong grasp on the language, but I am arguing that this is not one of those. This is a phrase with a straightforward literal meaning, unlike such phrases as “pulling your leg.”

Or the number of days since their birth? That’s the simpler explanation.

“Those apples are numbered” = “we know how many apples there are right now”

No, that does not make equal literal sense to what I said. Because days that are in the past are gone, we don’t have them anymore. We refer to moving through time as “killing” time or as “losing” time, in English we don’t tend to think of the past as something we currently have. The future is something we have or will have, the past is something we had and no longer have.

It means that you can place a specific number on the number of days left in a person’s life? I’m not sure I understand the question because the meaning of this one is pretty easy to see. Normally it is unclear when your death will be, but if someone tells you that your days are numbered they are implying that they possess the exact knowledge of what number of days you have left to live. They don’t usually mean that literally but the literal meaning is pretty clear.

Yo based

I literally just use normal Firefox with normal ublock origin on my phone

Lots of blind people don’t read braille for fun. Of course they’ll use it to navigate public buildings and such but braille books are crazy expensive, cumbersome, and not typically very well put together.

require*

They don’t get to choose their uniforms, and I’m sure many of them would choose shorts like the men get if they did.