Lore talk:Gods

Archives
Archive 1: Feb 2005 - Apr 2011

Seth

We might want to consider adding "Seth" as the object of a Tamrielic cult. Don't know anything about him or the group, except that the group was apparently involved in a Daggerfall quest or something, and the "Brotherhood of Seth" controlled at least one town in Black Marsh. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing about Seth worshippers controlling Gideon comes from here, if you're interested. --Legoless 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so there is no in-game source that refers to Seth, it's just a weird OOG thing? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Brotherhood of Seth appears in Arena. I've never played much of the game, but you have to contact them during the main quest. Seth isn't the first god unique to Arena; I've seen "the Lady" used in dialogue. --Legoless 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pantheon Redesign

Maybe it's just me, but the chart looks absolutely horrid. I can take it upon myself to redesign the whole mess, but I'm still learning the ins and outs of it all. It seems, (and please, correct any mistakes), that certain things can be said:

Gods are mostly either Anuic or Padomaic.

Heroes (i.e. Talos) were apotheosized by an existing deity or by service in the name of an existing deity.

Many gods listed are just culturally relevant names of the same gods or "aspects" of other gods. (i.e. Kyne and Kynareth)

And, at the very least, they can be listed effectively in a tree if an anchor god is chosen.

Perhaps some of the senior editors here can shed some light if I'm missing some integral part of this.98.198.118.224 10:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Long story short, there are enough cans of worms here to open a bait shop. The current chart is not particularly elegant, but I don't know of a better arrangement that could be agreed upon.

To address some of your concerns, the page already mentions Anu and Padomay and how many deities can be categorically attributed to one or the other. I don't think all deities easily fit into this dichotomy, however, so I doubt it would work well as a distinguishing factor for a chart.

Exactly how and why a mortal becomes a deity is something we don't really address much because we know very, very little about it. Speculation on it should be kept to a minimum in my opinion. In any given case, they may have gotten help, earned their divine status all on their own through unknown feats, stolen divine power, or even a weird combination of all three. There's also the chance with many of them (if not most) that they're not divine beings at all, even though some on Tamriel came to call them gods. It's also possible that we players have misinterpreted in-game sources which were exaggerating when they referred to an entity as a "god".

One of the things the current chart does well is distinguishing the pantheons, which is necessary because there's a lot of dispute, both in the game and outside of it, about how some deities may relate to each other. The chart's arrangement makes it clear that some deities are thought to be related without resorting to guesswork about how they are associated with each other.

As for an "anchor god" approach, I'm not precisely sure what you mean, but I would imagine that trying to choose an anchor could be problematic. It seems like it would involve subordinating one culture's beliefs to those of another culture, and we have no basis for making those kinds of judgments.

Anyways, if you think another design can better convey what is known without inappropriate speculation or stating as fact matters which are disputed or ambiguous, you should make a rough draft in a sandbox and then return here. If you can garner a consensus that your approach would be more helpful to the reader, I'm sure some of the more experienced editors will help spruce up and implement it. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very good points. I'm working my way through each of the articles to see what could be done. Prioritizing the nomenclature is definitely an issue, but the more I read through it, the more it definitely seems like it's possible to do.98.198.118.224 02:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ebonarm

What about Ebonarm? He's a pretty big deal in the Iliac Bay region and is still mentioned in every major divinity's page as being one of their enemies. Yes, he's never mentioned again after Daggerfall, but considering that the Hammerfell Fighter's Guild was apparently constructed as a series of mosques in his honor, he's a major player in the Redguard pantheon who hates every daedra but Sheogorath and most of the Aedra. Why do we include obscure one-offs like Leki but not Ebonarm?Black jack king 13:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on Ebonarm. Add him to the table if you wish. —Legoless 14:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the Orsmer?

The Orcs have a pantheon and culture too and neglecting the Orcs is making this table of equivalent deities pretty absurd. It has Mauloch listed as a Nord Orc God equivalent of Malacath. While the real and TES worlds are filled with discrimination and racism, as a wiki, should not this site strive to provide a more egalitarian source of information that does not neglect the "Pig Children" ? — Unsigned comment by 24.25.238.216 (talk) at 10:11 on 13 August 2012

It does state on the page that "Finally, Orsimer gods are not listed as they don't have a specific province, but instead a kingdom in the High Rock - Orsinium. Although Orsimer Gods are not listed, they predominantly worship Malacath and/or Trinimac." Also I believe Mauloch is Malacath? — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

the Osrmer are still an individual people worthy of individual notation. Malacath is only listed as a Dunmer God or a Tamriel Cult. The major difference between a cult and a religion is the derision and discrimination between Us and Them, such as worshipers of the Dragon Cult even though Dragon worship was the predominant religion in it's time.

is there substantiation that the Daedric Prince Malacath is the Mountain Fart, or is it pure speculation being presented as fact? Citation of resources and clarification is badly need on the wiki. the Lore entry on Malacath also lists his name as "Orkey" which would make him also that other mortal-turned-Divine, the Aedra Arkay.

Look at this from a cultural anthropology standpoint. On or earth most cultures will have found or made deities of primal ideals but the Hawaiian goddess Pele is not the Greek Prometheus or the Hindu Agni.

Malacath being Malak, Mauloch and Malooc as well as somehow still being (Orkey/Arkay) would also make him the only Daedra of the Hammerfall/Redgaurd pantheon- which is pretty unlikely. Names that sound alike are not enough to substantiate a claim. To say that a deity has been assimilated into a culture we really need a more than someone pointing and saying look, they're both smelly and ugly.

The Orsmer worship Daedra, first and foremost Malacath but their pantheon is much as the Dunmer being Daedra or Daedra Plus.

If the Dunmer have their own listing, so should the Orsmer.

Orcs need to go on or Dunmer go off. — Unsigned comment by 98.150.201.235 (talk) at 07:48 on 17 August 2012

Orkey is not Arkay, just because they sound similar does not make them the same person. Malacath is named Orkey here but i cannot find any reference to Arkay ever being called Orkey. Malacath is called Mauloch here. I cant think of any sources off hand that say the Orcs worship anyone other than Malacath, however it is well known that the dunmer worship many of the daedra so im not sure why you think the dunmer should not be on the page. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article is does seem we list Orkey as the skyrim Arkay. however i cannot find any references to back this up. The only thing i could find that even mentioned them both was here but it does not say they are the same person. Unless i missed somthing I think it should be changed to Arkay. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Varieties of Faith makes it pretty clear that Orkey is supposed to be some strange fusion of Malacath and Arkay. —Legoless 10:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see it saying anything like that. which part are you referring to? — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in reference to assimilations/related gods

Just noticed that some, but not all, god entries list and link to the equivalent gods for the other races as listed in the pantheon table in the main Gods page. For example the T'sun entry lists the Altmeri, Bosmeri and Yokudan equivalents of T'sun, and suggests Zenithar as an equivalent too.

This referencing is a bit patchy - some articles include all equivalents, some include one or two, and some make no reference to equivalents. I just was wondering if a clean-up could be initiated to keep these references neat and consistent across all deity entries. We could either:

• Ensure that all god equivalents are listed in every god article (which could look a bit long winded)

• Remove all reference to equivalents in every god article, meaning the Pantheon on the Overview page is the only and definitive source for matching equivalent gods across races (cleanest, but not as user-friendly for people browsing the Gods pages without starting at the Overview)

• Include a link to the equivalent Imperial god in the articles for every non-Imperial god, and then include a link to each equivalent non-Imperial god in the Imperial god articles. For example, articles like Zeht would link to Zenithar, but not to Z'en or any of the other equivalents. Zenithar would then briefly list a link to all associated gods (Zeht, Z'en, etc). I personally think this is the best compromise between efficient and user-friendly, as the Imperial deity will be the most familiar to players who want to know more about the religion of the game, and would be a good branching point for them to see the various incarnations of an individual god.

Happy to take on the above if the community agrees, and happy to follow any of the above three options/discuss others. Threepwood87 (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

Table Change

I'd like to propose a change concerning the Orsimer. I think "This table contains all names of beings worshipped on the nine provinces of Tamriel." would suit better than "This table contains all names of beings worshipped by the nine major races in Tamriel." as the table seem more province based than race based. 201.83.106.178 02:17, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

I moved this, as it is only indirectly related to the Orsimer. You raise a good point, but I would sooner change the column headings than I would that sentence. After all, Skyrim, for example, doesn't worship anything; it's a place. It's the Nords who do the worshiping. I'm fairly certain the separation by province is derived from the province-based pantheons presented in Varieties of Faith in the Empire, but perhaps this is just one more inaccuracy from that book we should correct by putting the Race at the top of the column and the province, if applicable, underneath in parentheses. If we did that, the Orcs should probably have their own column. It won't have many entries on it, but it's certainly better than clumping them into the cults column, especially since Skyrim has given us more information on their belief system. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 02:34, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

not a true distinction

Sorry, Legoless, but the sentence "these are the gods who refused to help create Mundus" definitely tells about Daedric Princes (gods), not about all daedra. Phoenix Neko (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (GMT)

No, all Daedra are the same type of being. Daedra means, "Not our ancestors", lesser Aedra became the the Earthbones and took part in creation, but are still Aedra, even if unnamed. So lesser Daedra who did not are their opposites, just as the Divines are to the Princes.--Br3admax (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2012 (GMT)

All Daedra are et'Ada. Maybe "gods" isn't the best word to use. —Legoless (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2012 (GMT)

I mean lesser daedra are not gods at all, so they should not be listed as gods. Solution could be listing Daedric Princes as gods and adding the line "For the lesser daedra who are not gods, see this page". Sorry again for my English... Phoenix Neko (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (GMT)

This is the Elder Scrolls. There are no real "gods", simply spirits whom amass a certain amount of worship and power, like in this source. If enough people worshiped random any random Daedra enough, it may gain power. To mortals, anyone of these spirits can become a god. And even Storm Atronachs have been worshiped before. If you want to go into theory of what a ES "god" is or not go to the forums; I'd be happy to discuss it with you there.--Br3admax (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2012 (GMT)

The story of Vernaccus and Bourlor tells of how Vernaccus, a lesser daedra of no significance, rose to godhood simply due to mortal worship. —Legoless (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2012 (GMT)

I'd like too, but my limited capability to communicate in English could be a mess. I somethat agree. But if your theory that only worshipped/revered gods are real gods is right, it should be described in the main article (but as I know, forgotten gods do not appear to stop being gods). And the main article tells "Generally, there are several distinct groups into which the various gods fall", and lesser daedra don't appear to belong to any of such groups (especially to the group of "the original spirits" - they could be the piece of particular Daedric Prince, but it's not the same thing). I suggest to describe the difference more clearly or/and to describe another group of gods to which lesser daedra could belong to (if they grow to the power level of "normal" god). I'm so sorry again for my broken English...I agree, but if that story is not simply a tale (to speak strictly, this tale doesn't tell if Vernaccus rose to the godhood, it tells he was just worshipped, but still he never got the power comparatible to that of any another god), such occasion is still rare. It would be better if such cases would be properly described in the main article. Phoenix Neko (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2012 (GMT)

Please just keep all of the posts in chronological order. Also you don't need to apologize. Read the Monomyth. Daedric Lords became powerful, not because of their god-ness, but because they built up power from their worshipers, amassed more pieces of Oblivion into their bodies, and made their own worshipers. In the Elder Scrolls, you can not compare the word "god" to how it is used in our world. There are spirits, and nothing else.--Br3admax (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (GMT)

Miraak?

Shouldn't Miraak be added to the table? He does have a cult following, after all... Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 21:41, 5 April 2013 (GMT)

Fair point. What of the Dragon Cult - they worshiped dragons in general, or do you think Alduin covers that? --Jimeee (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (GMT)

I'd imagine so. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 17:56, 11 April 2013 (GMT)