Lore talk:Umbra

Vile

why does it just say the the champion killed umbra and gave the sword to vile? you could keep the sword and even choose not to fight umbra, this article is only showing one of many paths that could be taken and it makes it look look like killing umbra is canon which its not as the choices are up to the player and a player could have easily chosen to keep the sword or even avoid a fight with umbra and i might be wrong but i think you could keep the sword in morrowind as well and not donate it to the musuem. what is the point in bethesda given us choices when people around here only try to acknowledge one side of the story and try to label things canon. in my point of view there is no canon beyond the core storyline and the choices in terms of morality, factions and side quests along with the conclusions is entirely up to the player.86.179.236.182 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. See The Infernal City. Vile got the sword, so that outcome is canon. As for the museum, it's better to say that something happened than to avoid mentioning it due to the possibility for a player to ignore a certain quest. If such was the case, who's to say that the Oblivion main quest happened at all? "My character kept the Amulet and lived in Bravil all her life." --Legoless 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

@Legoless There is a loophole for that. When the Champion became Sheogorath, he gave Umbra back to Vile.--Otepralloma5 (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

Source? —Legoless (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

Contradicting data

The Lord of Souls details how Umbra was created. Vile wanted a sword to toy with the mortals on Nirn, and hired ,0after decades of looking, Werr. Werr was to fashion him a sword that would be all powerful. Werr told Vile that the sword was completed, but Vile would need to put a piece of himself into it (making it a Daedric artifact at that point). However, Werr betrayed him and Umbra stole some of Vile's power, some books speculate that Werr was actually Sheogorath in disguise. In Lord of Souls, so much as touching the blade causes not so much as the wielder to go insane, but to be possessed by Umbra, the sentient chunk of Vile, himself. While under the possession of Umbra, food and drink is not needed and the body is ravaged after prolonged exposure to this. This explains everyone calling themselves Umbra after exposure to the blade, but the owners didn't experience the barbaric rage that a character in the book did. It is also revealed that Umbra is a shapeshifter, it can take on the form of anything, but it is always in the form of a bladed object. I just took all these notes while reading the book, so excuse me if they're somewhat erratic. Some of the things found here conflict with the information written in the article, and I'd like someone else to confirm they understood the story of the blade the same way that I did.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 02:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason they go mad in Lord of Souls is because Umbra (Creature/person/soul) isnt in the sword, Vuhon took him/it out to power Umbriel and since they got the soul back in the sword all should be back to normal by the time of skyrim---Stranger 02:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The article will need to be updated with this information, and Naenra Waerr (or Werr) should probably get her own entry at Lore:People. My copy of the novel won't even be sent out for another week, but if no one beats me to it then I'll try to update the article myself. --Legoless 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Speculation

I reverted a change claiming that "it is speculation that the Champion returned Umbra to Clavicus Vile". To the contrary, I would say it is entirely speculative to assert that Vile obtained the sword in some other unspecified manner. The fact that he gained possession of the sword is clear confirmation of the outcome of the Oblivion quest. There is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise; the fact that the quest had a potential alternative outcome in TES4 is irrelevant in the face of Umbra's appearance in the Greg Keyes novels. —Legoless (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We always assume all quests are completed, unless there are multiple "legitimate" outcomes. The legitimacy of keeping the sword is confirmed by being able to complete Hermaeus Mora's quest if you do keep it. I don't remember anything from the books that suggests that the CoC cannot have kept the sword for a time, given the 40 years (minus a few for the period the mad guy held it) in between Oblivion and the books, and the fact that daedric artifacts usually only allow temporary ownership before "relocating". Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say it is speculation because in the books there is never any mention that it was the champion that returned the sword or that the sword was even returned at that time. The first appearance of Umbra outside of the sword was just before the destruction of the Ingenium. Placing his first appearance at 4E 5 (The Red Year). Due to this time gap it is entirely possible that Clavicus got the sword at a later time if the Champion choose to keep the sword. As the Lore guide states "Original research is strongly disfavored in UESP articles. Even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material)." This is exactly what you have with the Champion giving Clavicus the sword. While it is logical to assume that the champion did return the sword it is not necessarily true. For instance it is entirely possible that the Champion could have kept the sword and another mortal serving Clavicus got the sword from the Champion a year later to give to Clavicus. This version would have zero impact of the novels, and seeing as there is no official confirmation that the Champion did return the sword it would be speculation to assume that they did or did not return it. Hence why I made the outcome unknown. Enderkingdev (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Enderkingdev on this one, there is no expicit event here, and there are a number of possible ways the sword could have returned to Vile. Plus, from Arena, artefacts also disappear with no explanation at random times only to show up in different places at later dates. Not only this, but I thought that the UESP followed the idea that the only quests completed necessarily by the protagonist were the main quest and the DLCs, I don't think there is any indication in the quests mentioned that the Champion of Cyrodiil themselves had to necessarily be the one to complete them. Better to just go completely without any mention of how the sword returned and just state the fact that we know of, that it returned. Bryn (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There does not have to be an explicit mention for an event to have happened. A series of logical statements that result in only one outcome being possible is acceptable, though it usually merits a note on how the information was arrived at. That sentence is a clunky one taken from wikipedia where an abundance of source material is available, though the spirit of it remains true. All quests are assumed to have been completed, up to the point of diversion (multiple legitimate outcomes) or conflict (doing one prevents the other eg Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim). There has never been a different view on quest completion for lore purposes here. That is why it is entirely possible for the CoC to have returned the sword, as well as it being equally possible for the CoC to have kept it, per Oblivion's quest. The gap as you say is 5 years (not the 40ish I thought), but it is still a gap. We don't state that the hero of the game did everything, it is fine to be obscure given the logical statement that they cannot have done everything, even though we accept that everything* was done (ie "an unknown adventurer"). Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 20:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to think that how Clavicus got the sword might have actually been intentionally left out of the novels. Perhaps to avoid this very situation of saying what the outcome of a side quest was. There isn't too much that I think I could add that I haven't already said. In summary there is nothing stating that the sword was returned as a result of that quest, not even a reference to it. Due to the possibility of Clavicus getting it a little later with no impact upon the events I really do think it is accurate to say that it is unknown what the end result of the Oblivion quest is. Even if it wasn't changed to be unknown we still can't use the events of Oblivion to back that statement up because Oblivion had two endings in that quest. So Oblivion itself does not support one outcome over another. However, the novels couldn't be used as a source either because, again, they don't state or imply that particular result happened. Enderkingdev (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)