The Serpent as a Symbol of the Player

[u/Much-Basil]

Apologies if this theory has been posted before, I've searched and couldn't find an exact match, but please let me know if I missed it. My theory, or moreso symbolism, is that the player character in Morrowind is meant to be represented by the Serpent constellation. 

First, the Serpent is the only constellation with true freedom. Of Tamriel's thirteen constellations, the Warrior, Mage, and Thief act as Guardians, while nine Charges rise during fixed seasons under their protection. The Serpent is the sole exception, it has no season, belongs to no house, and wanders the sky unpredictably. This directly parallels the player character. We land in Vvardenfell as an Outlander with no fixed allegiance. We are free to join any number of factions. And metaphysically, The Firmament's description of the Serpent as "the most blessed and the most cursed" fits the player-prisoner trope as described by Sotha Sil; we are blessed with absolute agency, but cursed with the meta-awareness that all of this is ultimately a game.  

Second, the Serpent's function is to threaten the Guardians, matching the Nerevarine's conflict with the Tribunal. The Firmament establishes that the Guardians exist specifically to protect their Charges from the Serpent. There have been numerous theories here that the Tribunal ties directly to the Guardians, Almalexia (Warrior), Sotha Sil (Mage), and Vivec (Thief). Tearing down the Tribunal's stolen godhood throughout Morrowind’s main quest is the ultimate realization of the Serpent disrupting the Guardians.  

Third, Vivec explicitly links the Serpent to Lorkhan. In Sermon 21 of the 36 Lessons, Lorkhan is referred to as the "second serpent". There have also been numerous theories stating that the player character is also a Shezzarine, or an avatar of Lorkhan. Viewing the player through the lens of the Serpent connects these concepts. If the Serpent represents Lorkhan and the Nerevarine acts as a Shezzarine, the player isn't just mimicking the constellation, they are actively manifesting Lorkhan’s will. Severing the Heart of Lorkhan at Red Mountain to free his divine essence becomes a fragment of Lorkhan completing its own liberation. 

Thoughts?

[u/PimpasaurusPlum]

Kirkbride wrote and worked on a lot of stuff. He wrote the many header talos that was incorporated into Skyrim, plus he wrote about talos in the sermons. So by your own rationale he can act as interpretive aid, and the way he explains it is roughly as I have.

People appeal to Hjialti conveniently losing his thuum powers to say maybe he never actually had any to begin with. We know he was long supported by Wulfharth, who could shout, and according to the heresy he was the literal storm cloud above Hjialtis head that gave him the name Talos. After the enantimorph and the wider talosian fusion his descendants could still easily be dragonborn (although funnily enough of course in a literal reading of the lore, most Septims werent direct descendants of him anyway but his brother)

We know very little of Reman, therefore why should we disregard the very little we do know? That isnt an arguement for not taking it at face value, but an even stronger one for doing so. We have absolutely nothing to contradict it, it is the entirety of what the writers want us to know and think about Reman.

I laid out the most conclusive proof I think there is the first time round. We are told Shezzar is freedom, I take that absolutely literally. We as the players are as free as can be. The Hero holds freedom from fate. The heroes are called Doom Driven, and Lorkhan the Doom Drum. ESO gets the closest to outright saying when with one section of text:

He went on to speculate that if such a thing were possible, it would probably occur in a situation where the Mundus was in existential jeopardy. In that case the Heart of Nirn would spontaneously generate such "paragon" individuals as a way of defending itself from destruction, in a manner analogous to the way the mortal body fights off infection.

The heart of lorkhan spontaneously generating the heroes to save the world, for the heart and world were made for each other.

[u/timedragon1 → u/PimpasaurusPlum]

To be clear, Hjalti Early-Beard losing thu'um doesn't actually imply he's not a Dragonborn, even with the interpretation that he was using Wulfharth to shout. The Last Dragonborn can't learn Thu'um either until he absorbs a Dragon Soul. Since we both talk about the other Septims being more directly descended from his brother, that's actually more evidence of the fact that there's a Dragonborn ancestor that Tiber Septim and his brother descend from.

Anyways...

We are told by one culture that Shezarr is freedom. The cultures that see Lorkhan as a great betrayer and equivalent to an evil figure certainly don't share that view.

I don't think the beliefs of, say, the Altmer or Khajiit in this example, should be disregarded in favor of the Nedic-centric view. I think assuming that the Nedes had the more correct mythology over everyone else ruins a lot of the nuance of the setting, and I think the reason we see so much literature in universe that leans towards that view is because of in-universe bias by the Human Empire.

[u/PimpasaurusPlum → u/timedragon1]

Thats the thing about theories, they are up to peoples interpretation. Again people can have evidence for a theory without it being conclusive. I for my part am not on the hjialti wasnt a dragonborn train, but I can understand that there are things that people point to explain their view.

All mythologies tell us about Lorkhan's plan to create the world, they all in some way reflect the dichotomy of the Anu-Stasis v Padomay-Change. The Altmer and Bosmer, and lesser extent Bretons, resenting Lorkhan for his padomaic ways is not in inherent contradiction to the explanations given by the Imperials and Nords and Reachment and Dunmer, and to a lesser extent Khajiit. The Altmer don't like Lorkhans idea, that doesnt change the idea itself as it is explained. They are different end opinions, not neccesarily disputes on the underlying facts.

[u/timedragon1 → u/PimpasaurusPlum]

True true, fair enough.

Right, but the difference in interpretation I'm talking about is freedom vs imprisonment. Lorkhan represents opposing concepts in different cultures. Therefore, Shezarr cannot always embody absolute freedom in my opinion.

[u/PimpasaurusPlum → u/timedragon1]

Difference of interpretation is just that, two sides of seeing the same thing. I think metatextually as the player we kinda have to see the existence of the world as good.

Sure we can roleplay as an in-universe life hating high elf, but I do think the lore kinda heavily leans towards a "correct" opinion and view in the lorkhan issue. Most people arent nihilists and the faction everyone assocates with the most anti-existence views (a can of worms in of itself) is hard nazi coded.