Lore talk:Races

Taken From Wikipedia

I fear that a lot of the information on these pages were taken illegally from Wikipedia. I'm not 100% sure what their policy for derivative works is, but I'd like to be aware as these articles risk deletion. --Aristeo 20:40, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Looks like there's no problem so long as we put a link-back to them. [1] --TheRealLurlock 21:59, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

Although this concern was brought forth some time ago, I would like to note that - while the articles are each greatly derivative, if not outright copied - I am currently working on revising the article for each race to be both unique and in-depth. The Khajiit page is currently posted and being slowly edited on my computer ere a new version is put up, whilst the Argonian and Altmer articles are currently underway and progressing nicely.

As to the notice itself, I see no need to be concerned about taking the information from Wikipedia. Not only will these articles be modified - not only by myself, but many others, of that I am sure - however, it must be remembered that the Wikipedia articles are but compilations of data from outside sources as well, and thus, under no copyright prohibiting derivative works from being made.

-- Booyah boy 09:22, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Orc back to Orsimer

This discussion has been merged with the pre-existing discussion on Tamriel Talk:Orc --Nephele 02:07, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Vampires

I've added references to the Vampire factions since these, are for many game purposes, a "race". The Lore:Vampire page has the stub macro, but I'm sure it will be "fluffed-up" in no time. I'd really like to see the Morrowind Clans get pages in the Tamriel namespace, as I've done for the Daggerfall Bloodlines. I hope this might help the nice people with the MRP (Morrowind Redesign Project). Naturally if adding these links on the Lore:Races page was a Terrible Idea Which We All Will Soon Regret, then you have my appologies in advance. Just revert ;) ⌈Uniblab 14:38, 8 January 2007 (EST)⌋

Orc as Playable Race

May not be playable in Arena or Daggerfall, but definitely playable in Morrowind and Oblivion, which would be 50% of the series not counting the expansions. Plus most of the site traffic is from Oblivion and Morrowind (probably close to 90%), and a present games have them. --Ratwar 15:24, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Makes perfect sense to me. --HMSVictory 15:25, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

My logic for unbolding it, is that the bold is stated to be for races that are playable in most of the games. Orcs are playable in 2 out of 4, which may or may not be qualified as "most." I suppose we can discuss proper classification in here. Durza 17:12, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, is a totally unrelated system, .5 rounds up to 1, and I'd qualify 'most' as those percentages that would round up to 100%. I think more than anything this is a problem with the wording 'most'. What if we changed the statement to Races in bold are playable races in the most recent games. I can definitely see your point about how that is somewhat wrong.--Ratwar 18:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Great plan, Ratwar! I've done so. Durza 18:51, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

ideas for Divine format

I feel we should replace 'Divine' with 'et'ada' and divide that into Aedra and Daedra, perhaps with Magna Ge and Mnemolia as well.

A complaint about real world parallels

I am writing this to argue for the removal (or moratorium, or trimming, whathaveyou) of the parts of the Races section where editors try to find the real world influences of the human races and then blow them out of proportion and add a little embellishment. This does not contribute to your understanding of the subject, it merely recalls those endless threads on the forums where everyone who can recognize an obvious name similarity will say Nords! Vikings! Imperial! Romans! Redguards! Black People! (Or was it Persians? Or Swahilis?) Bretons! French!(Although I have heard British) Firstly, these things are nebulous and unimportant. It is not lore. And the Nords aren't Scandinavian, they're Germanic. I mean Anglo-Saxon. Or something. Second, their inclusion violates the style guide. Third, there it an important difference between 'based upon' and 'inspired by.' If the Bretons really were the inhabitants of Brittany, when they went to war with the navies of the Aldmeri Dominion, they would have used a Tamrielic version of the Chasse-maree and kicked ass.Temple-Zero 20:44, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

extinct

Does anyone feel that we should make a note of the three races on this page that no longer exist?74.65.142.202 21:02, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't see why not --Darth NANAME 23:55, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

I can't think of an apt word, however. 'Extinct' doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps rather than a parenthetical label, an asterisk with a note at the bottom or top of the list.Temple-Zero 10:30, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Kothringi

I added a link to the article here. Is this ok? --Max Welrod 03:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Makes sense. You don't always need to ask though - if other editors think there's a problem they'll undo your edit and explain why in an edit summary or talk page post. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 06:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragons

Aren't Dragons sentient in Tamriel? Should they be included here?Juz 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)-- 04:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think that they should be added as the races here are only man , mer and beast not sentient. Besides, I think they would fit more into the creature category than races, just like the hist.--^MC• S'drassa ^•T2M 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing Dragons from this list. According to the bare description we've come up with, races of Nirn are humanoids. Dragons may be sentient (in some cases), live in villages, and even perform blacksmithing, but aren't goblins and giants sentient? Goblins are known to craft potions, talk to one another, follow leaders, coordinate attacks. These are more humanoids than dragons. I see goblins and humanoids as races and dragons as creatures. Brzlnboi 12:07, 14 January 2014 (EST)

As as noted in the revert by Jimeee, they are considered to be an Akaviri race, albeit one that isn't exactly humanoid. Jeancey (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (GMT)

Race Images in Lore

We have no images for a lot of the races. Also why is it that there are no illustrations of typical Bosmer/Altmer/Nord/Argonian/Breton/Dunmer/Khajiit females? Even if no "official" image exists is there some reason none of the people on here can draw one? We have access to all of those races in the games why can no-one use some of the images on here to make illustrations? I accept that using screenshots isn't a good option - although it could be used in the short term - because these are lore articles and any screenshot is from one of the games, but they are something that we can use as a start. Also why is only one of the Khajiit subspecies shown on the Khajiit page?--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is that good a drawer (Or has the ability to draw a picture then upload it). But we could have a up close of a, say, Dunmer female with the default face, hair and a prison shirt, from both Morrowind and Oblvion. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?}

The images come from the official site. I'd rather not start including fan-generated content on Lore pages. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What about Lore:Falmer? Screenshots are fan generated and noboby has objected to them being there.--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 18:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The images in the screenshots aren't fan-generated. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are in-game images; fan-generated would actually be drawn by fans. A lot of the races don't have pics cause we don't have official or in-game pictures. If we start including fan art, it wouldn't be very... loreish. -- Jplatinum16 02:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sithis~

Shouldn't Sithis be included here somewhere?

Why? Sithis has no confirmed race AFAIK.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

General question about age

Has it been established in the Elder Scrolls series how long the mer and beast races live, relative to man? This sort of thing seems to be hugely variable depending on the individuals access to magic and such, but has a natural life expectancy ever been found? Just curious. --Admos 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have found the answer to my own question, here. A quote from The Real Barenziah: "Katisha's face briefly wore the envious, wistful look humans got when contemplating the thousand-year lifespan Elves had been granted by the gods. True, few ever actually lived that long as disease and violence took their respective tolls. But they could. And one or two of them actually did." A thousand years? That's quite a steep difference. I always assumed it was a hundred years or so. That will certainly change how I think of Elder Scrolls lore. Has this been modified at all throughout the series? --Admos 14:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

They can get older than that - Divayth Fyr is supposed to be over 4000 years old. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 14:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember that character, I always assumed it was something to do with magic. I suppose seeing as elves are innately magical races it partially is. At first I thought this would mean massive overpopulation, but the same book revealed that Elves generally only have one or two children. So what about beast races? Is there any info on them? I imagine that Khajiit live shorter lifespans, being somewhere between big cats (twenty - thirty?) and humans (about seventy to eighty?), they'd maybe see the better part of fifty or sixty years? Or maybe that sort of reasoning doesn't apply in the ES universe. And what about the Argonians? Do they just shed ageing scales and keep living? And Orcs are technically elves too, would they live for centuries if not for the warrior culture? --Admos 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Argonians if I recall are a special case, in that they supposedly have multiple life cycles - I think they actually may change gender as they age. What this says about their overall life-span I don't know. I also don't think there's anything to suggest that Khajiit live shorter lives than humans or other races. I believe there are some very old Orcs seen in lore - Umbra for example, though it's possible his age has been extended by his connection with the sword. Of course, even humans in this universe can live much longer than in the real-world, at least in cases of magical intervention, e.g. Ulfgar the Unending, who is well over 500. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 03:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Divayth Fyr and other Telvanni live a lot longer than most Dunmer since they use magic to extend their lifespan. — Unsigned comment by 76.105.239.216 (talk) at 22:21 on 3 April 2013

removal of vampires

vampires are not a race of people or humaniods they're the diseased, in which first weakens, then transforms those infected into the feared creatures of the night. if this remains we might as well add other creatures such as wolves,fish,deer,and many others.The wiki says races are refer to their main sapient humanoid species as "races" not the disease infected.So I am asking for a Administrator to remove this from the page permanently.(Darco 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

See Daggerfall:Vampirism. They are classified as a race in this game. Seeing that is enough for me to say it should stay. And by the way, if you think something needs to be deleted, you can do it yourself leaving an edit summary justifying why it was deleted. That's the wonder of a wiki.ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Response it even says they can be cured so my arguement stands Vampires are disease infected creatures no matter how you look at it.(Darco 10:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

I'm going to have to agree with Darco here. It seems more like a gameplay mechanic in Daggerfall to have Vampires as a separate race, and vampirism is presented as a disease in all of the following games. Since 'reproduction' only occurs by spreading that disease, rather than bearing new life, I'm not sure how anyone can call it a 'race' in the sense this article intends. Same goes for all of the werecreatures. They're afflictions, not new races.--Admos 10:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lore:Vampire trails back to this page as well, since the trail returns it to this page, I believe it should be left like it is, unless someone more experienced takes a look and decides it needs to be different. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 23:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's correct to say that vampires are a race from a gameplay mechanics perspective, but in a quick search, I can't find anywhere where they're referred to as a race in-game, which is usually our acid test for how to treat something. Eric has a valid point, though: if they're not a race, what are they? They're not creatures, they're not necessarily monsters, nor do they really fit in too many other categories that I can think of. Vampirism itself may be a disease (or porphyric hemophilia), but vampires are not a disease...at least not in the traditional sense. So from a purely wiki stance, what do we use as a trail for Lore:Vampire if not this? On another technical note, we state at the top that races in bold have been playable, since vampires have been playable, as well as a couple of lycanthropes, if we remove those "races" from the page, we lose that info altogether. I can think of ways around that, but I think we're compromising in some way or another no matter what we do. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not leave them on the page but note they become the result of a disease from Morrowind onwards, turning them into a type of class like warrior or knight.--122.58.68.119 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that vampires be included with creatures. They can be of any race, so listing them with the other races as a seperate race doesn't make sense. Also, think of it this way, any race can become infected with the disease but if it isn't cured they become the "creature" vampire. Sort of like a skeleton undead. At one point that skeleton was of a specific race but it no longer is applicable because it is now the creature skeleton. It is probably worth stating in a vampire creature section that they may be of any race. As a side note, the same should apply to were creatures because, as seen in Skyrim, the ability to become a werewolf has nothing to do with race. They're both caused by an affliction which turns the infected individual into a monster/creature. Alexcunning 06:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that only from a game mechanics standpoint that vampires can be considered a race. From a lore perspective it would be a disease as has already been noted. As a disease it makes no sense to put the information under Lore:Creatures in that namespace's current incarnation (individual types of vampires, as they appear in the games, are covered there already and that is all that should go there with the current format).

One way of dealing with them would be to list them more extensively under factions (since most of the information seems related to the bloodlines) but this approach might cause a loss in information. Another solution would be to create a disease section within the Lore:Creatures (viruses and bacteria are fauna after all) which vampirism could be listed under along with other diseases like ataxia. The problem with this solution is it conflicts with the format of Lore:Creatures and, to make it work, the format would have to be changed (a possible working solution would be to have a Lore:Fauna section with the subcategories Creatures and Diseases). It is also possible to modify the latter idea and just create a Lore:Disease space in some other convenient section.

Those are my thoughts on possible ways of dealing with the issue. I am sure others can come up with more creative ways to deal with vampires, but I think that the important thing, is that we realize, that lore wise, the current way is unsatisfactory and we need to find a better way of doing it, without losing any of the current data. Coronus 04:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Volkihar vampires from Dawnguard are not diseased. With them, they were initially transformed via the power of Boethiah, and then later on more of them were created via sharing the blood. Same goes for werewolves in Skyrim; they are transformed via sharing the blood, and while it's not stated directly the implication is that the first Skyrim werewolves were transformed via the power of Hircine directly. They're still not like regular races because the creation of new members is only via the sharing of blood, not the usual pregnancy method, but they're not simply diseased people either. Also, at several points in the Dawnguard storyline various Volkihar vampire NPCs refer to the vampire race. --Morrolan (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2013 (GMT)

This has become an issue of game mechanics vs lore. In the older games, they were a race for game mechanics reasons. In later games, as well as in lore, they are classified as a disease. Therefore, they are a disease, not a race, as lore supersedes game mechanics. Jeancey (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2013 (GMT)

Vampires and Werewolfs, are they a playable race?

Based on the question being asked i would just like to say that you are not able to be the race of either a werewolf or vampire. however this does not mean you cannot play as these. this is quite possible to become these through either quests in-game or combat. i hope this helped anyone that may want to know about these.

Xivilai as a sentient Race.

I'm not entirely certain if we should count Xivilai as a sentient Daedric race in the same exact vein as the Dremora, Golden Saints, and Dark Seducers. I mean, if we're going to add the Xivilai to the list of sentient Daedric races, you'd might as well add the Aurorans and Knights of Order there, too. Although I still do not think that any of those three fall under the same criteria as the three "main" races bear that put them and other races, such as the Dragons, on this article. Bauglir100 21:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Xivilai were a clan in Battlespire. Whether the Daedra are sentient or not is disputable, but their leader, Xivilai Moath, certainly is. Might be best just to remove them from this page, though. --Legoless 21:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Update

Shouldn't we update Skyrims vampires to playable? I can't right now myself.--Br3admax 13:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Shouldn't be too controversial, but if for some reason it turns out to be, we can always debate it here. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Orma, Yerpest, Horwalli

This discussion resulted in the creation of Lore:Orma, Lore:Yerpest and Lore:Horwalli, which all redirect to Lore:Kothringi. I don't see the need for the races/tribes to have a separate page - although I wouldn't object - seeing as there's nothing to say about them. However, I do agree with them being mentioned in the "Man" section of this article. If listing dead tribes as separate races is objected to, I think we should remove the various "Men-of-x" from the list as well. —Legoless 13:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

just a list

I am disappoint. This lore article isn't much of an article at all, it's just a list.

I understand that most game info pertains to specific races, but where are the discussion around topics of (just a few examples here):

• human(oid) interbreeding: are all human(oid) races "compatible" or is there race pairings that does not result in offspring?
• the question of offspring. What race will the children of a Breton - Redguard couple be? There does not seem to be any half-breeds, so let's say this couple begets six children. Will there be 6 little bretons, 6 little redguards or something in-between?
• how about orcs, khajit and argonians? Are they considered to be humanoids just like, say, Nords or Altmer. Or should they be considered more like individual species? (Mind you, just because two creatures are of different species does not preclude intercourse or procreation)
• racism on Tamriel
• socioeconomical observations regarding the different races

and so on. Regards, 90.229.34.175 09:55, 18 October 2012 (GMT)

Read Notes on Racial Phylogeny. That just about all I'm aware of ever being written about cross-race breeding (the only in-game example being The Gray Prince, as far as I'm aware). While this would be the best place for information on cross breeding as there is likely to be, it's still kind of a minor note. I'm not sure that would be enough to carry an entire article as I can't see that much of a reason for the other information. There just isn't that much that is solely relevant to races as there is dedicated to specific ones. While racism is prevalent, it also generally targets specific races, making it more relevant to them then an overview article. I also find it hard to write about socioeconomics on this page, as from my understanding of it that has more to do with specific groups (making it more appropriate on specific races articles) then it does with races in general. Also, Orcs are elves and not beast folk like like the Khajiit or Argonians. That's just a little pet peeve of mine, common mistake. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 10:24, 18 October 2012 (GMT)

Thanks for those notes! (As an aside, I chuckle at your "pet peeve" since the very notes you provide single out orcs as something even more special than even Khajit or Argonians; in fact bundling Orcs with goblins, trolls and harpies! Yes, I know orcs have elven blood ancestry, but that does not necessarily mean they reproduce like elves anylonger) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2012 (GMT)

It might be helpful to have a "see also" section with that link, perhaps? — ABCface^◥ 18:16, 21 October 2012 (GMT)

Reachmen?

Currently we have the Forsworn listed as a faction. I just wanted to bring up the idea of instead classifying them as a distinct race of men (either "Reachmen" or "Forsworn"), since it seems like a better reflection of how they're depicted in the lore. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:13, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

While I get what you are saying, the fact that Borkul the Beast - an Orc, is also part of the group leads me to believe that members may not be restricted to native Bretons in the 4th Era. While I strongly believe game data is not a reliable source for lore, all forsworn enemies are indeed are Breton - so there is that. Additionally, you can also dismiss Borkul's membership as a mere bodyguard of Madanach. Maybe he is an exception to the rule.

Historically, I would say yes - the Reachmen were likely indeed a distinct race. The 4th Era Forsworn may be a different matter, we can't really be certain. --Jimeee (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

From what I remember I thought the Forsworm were described as a political group and a ethnicity. Might be remembering wrong.--Ashendant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

That's correct, Ashendant. I think Enodoc's new article on the Reachmen makes it clear that they're a race - a mongrel race, but a race nonetheless. Jeancey created a redirect, Reachman, specifically because we needed it for the race parameter on lore people summaries for pages like Lore:Madanach. The Reachmen are not held together by the bonds of organization or mutual goals: they are a group only united by blood. Accordingly, I strongly urge that Lore:Reachmen be moved out of Lore:Factions and into Lore:Races, with a link to it on this page. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:25, 29 May 2013 (GMT)

Hmmm, not sure about classifying them as a separate, for the same reason you wouldn't classify the Skaal separate from the Nords. Sure they're different, but only different strains of the same crop. In this case they are the "mongrel" Bretons, the same way Skaal are "mongrel" Nords. If anything I propose simply adding a section in the Breton page along the lines of "Breton Diversities".67.142.163.27 06:59, 2 June 2013 (GMT)

Well, we have a separate page for the skaal, so we should have a separate one for each of these. There are distinct political and cultural differences, which warrant a separate page. Jeancey (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2013 (GMT)

Right, separate pages is not the issue; it's about how those pages are categorized. This is about using the terminology of the source material, about faithfully applying the distinctions made by Bethesda. The Skaal refer to the Nords as their "cousins", and other sources treat them as Nords with a distinct culture - a faction, in other words, not a separate racial group. The Reachmen are distinguishable in this respect; they're referred as a race unto themselves in the lore. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 19:48, 2 June 2013 (GMT)

(←) The Forsworn are a political faction that contains mostly Reachmen and hagravens. It's clear from Anton Virane's dialogue that he at least considers Reachmen to be distinct from Bretons, although it's also clear that Reachmen are close relatives to Bretons. But it's also clear that a number of Reachmen are not members of the Forsworn, like Ainethach. It should be noted that most of the pages for Reachmen who aren't Forsworn in the Skyrim namespace misidentify them as Bretons. --Morrolan (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2013 (GMT)

Ice Tribes?

Anybody know what race is this? Lore:Ice Tribes--Ashendant (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2013 (GMT)

i was told they were snow elves, they are present in side game Dawnstar (same town in Skyrim) although they look slightly different from both untainted snow elves and the betrayed Falmer, so perhaps they are a distinct group or another tribe of snow elves who evolved separately from the Falmer and Forgooten Vale snow elves, perhaps they were Falmer or untainted snow elves that simply looked different because of Dawnstar's graphics, or because they hadn't yet fully devolved into Falmer as we know them in Skyrim because Dawnstar took place before the events of Skyrim. — Unsigned comment by 76.71.88.35 (talk) at 20:24 on 1 February 2019

(First off let me apologize for only partially fixing the indentation and signature of the above comment, but hopefully someone will finish the job.) Secondly, I am not aware of any sources that give more information about the Ice Tribes, and they could just as easily be Rieklings, Falmer, or or a separate race entirely. If the lore isn't clear, we can't just pick our favorite interpretation, and the article would probably get a bit messy, if we listed each race under all of the categories, that they might potentially fall under. Patata (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia Vampires

I know its been a while since I've talked about vampires on the lore page and I'm not going start that again, but this is a question is the only reason (beside the info) the vampire on here because of the wikipedia races page?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Races_of_The_Elder_Scrolls. Also I would like and the wild races to page as well.(Darco (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2013 (GMT))

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are asking if the only reason that we have vampires here is because of wikipedia? The answer to that is no. If anything, the reason it is on wikipedia like that would be because we have it here. Jeancey (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

yes and thanks also i would like to and the wild races if anyone doesn't mind.(Darco (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2013 (GMT))

wild races

The wild races are actually creatures, which is why they are not listed here. Jeancey (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

yes but dragons giants goblins are considered a race although not very civilized and when it comes to creatures on here i think we've crossed that line when vampires and Lycanthropes had been added.(Darco (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2013 (GMT))

They are not considered separate races in TES, any more than deer are a separate race, or slaughterfish. In terms of TES Lore, they are considered creatures, whereas Vampires and Lycanthropes are considered races. If we were going to change it, vampires and lycanthropes would be removed, rather than the others added. Jeancey (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

I know but isn't that the whole point the Lore's page to add info about such things even if their not playable? I feel that Lore:races page shouldn't be about gameplay mechanics in terms of playability. their are races here not possible to play such as snow elves. also going over ive notice dragons had been add to Akaviri but still feel we should add giants and goblins to the races. (Darco (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2013 (GMT))

This isn't about playable or not playable at all. In terms of TES Lore, a giant is no different from a scamp. Same with a goblin. They are not considered races, but rather creatures. Jeancey (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

yes I see that it seems this like vampires and werewolves is a matter opinion and debate but for now i consinder them a creature race.(Darco (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (GMT))

Yeah, we are discussing that point on IRC right now. I'm thinking they should be removed, as they are diseases, not races. Thoughts? Jeancey (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) Vamps and werewolves are that way because of a disease. You can cure the disease on both. So if it's a disease and it's curable, it shouldn't be a race. You can't change race. If you're an altmer werewolf, you're still primarily an altmer--still a golden-skinned elf. You're just a little different like with any other disease (except a little cooler). If we say werewolf, then what do you look like? We don't know. If we say altmer, we know. Lycanthropy is just a condition which allows you to shapeshift.

Giants are creatures, as are scamps. Scamps are daedra. You could go on a stretch and say that giants are another race of humanoid, but it may be easier to just classify them as a creature, since you can never communicate with them (except that one during A Night To Remember). Dragons are flying lizard-beasts and thus not a humanoid race. Vely^►t►e 19:10, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

I see your point and agree to some point their some would add about coldhaubor vamipres. but stay say thier disease ridden bloodsuckers that need to be shot with a holy fire crossbow but i digress.(Darco (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (GMT))

I agree with the removal. On a side note, we should add "Reachmen" as a distinct race of men to the page and template. Right now it redirects to Forsworn, but we'll fix that eventually. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:56, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

The player can't communicate with Giants, but the character can. There is a skill in Daggerfall called "Giantish". Speakers of "Giantish" can make Giants non-hostile towards the player. As such, Giants can be communicated with. Elymdor (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (GMT)

removal of my header

really i thought it was good it added to the page so it not just a list page.(Darco (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2013 (GMT))

As evidenced by the conversation above, we don't really have a concrete definition for race. So it would be much better to decide on a definition and decide what should go on the page before adding a definition to the page. It's okay to add something to the top, but since it's currently being discussed, we should wait until we have a clear decision on what should belong on the page. Vely^►t►e 19:46, 25 May 2013 (GMT)

Dead Races

I've added back the races that were removed for 'not having any info on them'. We know they existed so they should stay. If they should be removed because they are dead, then remove Nedes, Aldmer, Chimer, Dwemer, Lefthanded Elves, and the Lilmothiit. Additionally, if the Kothringi and Orma are distinct, then so are the Yerpest and Horwalli. Orma was previously removed because it incorrectly redirected to the Kothringi page, which was later corrected. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:51, 17 December 2013 (GMT)

source

What are the sources of the Horwalli and Yerpest races? And why redirect to the Orma? --The Hlaalu (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2014 (GMT)

They were tribes of Men native to Black Marsh. See Lore:Pocket Guide to the Empire, 3rd Edition/Argonia. --Jimeee (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2014 (GMT)

Where to draw the line: Race or Bestiary?

There is much debate on whether Giants and Goblins should be mentioned here instead of in the Bestiary. Where exactly is the line drawn? We don't put creatures here as a rule, but I see dragons on the list, when they are clearly creatures of Akaviri. Why not split the races between humanoids and non-humanoids? Elymdor (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2014 (GMT)

I think we should draw the line at white souls. —Legoless (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2014 (GMT)

Race Overview Articles

While lurking in this section, I noticed that the "For more information, see main lore article" parts occasionally have different links. Some like "main lore article", some link "lore article" and one says "see the main lore article on Nords" with Nords having the link. I was about to change all of the ones where it says "lore article" to "main lore article" (Since "main lore article" comes up roughly 9 times and on all 3 pages, whereas "lore article" appears only a few times), when I realized how many I would have to change. Thus, I would like to know what we all think it should be like. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 23:01, 29 October 2014 (GMT)

The most common is definitely "main lore article". I'm not entirely sure why we have that part at all though, since it's also standard to make the subject of the article itself a link that you can click on whenever it's transcluded. -- Hargrimm^(T) 23:41, 29 October 2014 (GMT)

I think it is there so it doesn't have to link to itself (Someone (An IP I thought) asked why pages link to themselves instead of just being bolded so there may be confusion about it). Anyways, once I have the time, I will get around to adding/fixing all of those, unless consensus is to do away with it and link the page to itself for transclusions. ~ Ad intellige ^(talk) 00:25, 31 October 2014 (GMT)

Ages

This has bugged me for quite some time now, so it would be wonderful if you guys could help. My question is how long do each of the Elder scrolls races generally live? 24.192.180.51 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

According to ESO devs, "Elves live two to three times as long as humans and the “beast-races” (Orcs, Khajiiti, Argonians). A 200-year-old Elf is old; a 300-year-old Elf is very, very old indeed. Anyone older than that has prolonged his or her lifespan through powerful magic."  ~Shuryard (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Shuryard! So what about Bretons? I mean they are half man and half mer, so how long do they live? 24.192.180.51 02:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I could not find anything about the life expectancy of Bretons specifically, but I would assume that since they are classified as Men (see Lore:Man), they live as long as humans do.  ~Shuryard (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Shuryard! It's appreciated very much! 24.192.180.51 18:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome :)  ~Shuryard (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Lamia

Shouldn't Lamia be on this? They're listed as beastfolk on other pages, including the beastfolk page. --140.211.158.71 03:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Lamia are listed on the page, under beastfolk. KINMUNE ﴾TALK﴿ 04:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Move Nymphs?

I don't know how to edit it msyelf but shouldn't nymphs be in other? With the Spriggans and such, do they really qualify as a beast race? Tarponpet (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Plurals?

Most of the human races are plural, like Nords and Imperials, but most elvish and beast races are singular, like Centaur and Ayleid. What's the correct usage here? Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, everything should be singular as per the actual pages. --Jimeee (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Druids of Galen?

I noticed that the Thousand-Strong of Sedor were added, which makes me wonder if the Druids of Galen should be, too. Both are Nedic peoples who are known by a name that sounds more like a faction than a race, but I do think both are races. I don't know much about the Druids, though, which is why I've posted here.

Druids of Galen are in the same category as what Atmorans are to Nords and Yokudans are to Redguards, they're an ancient race that pretty much got renamed into a modern race (the Bretons). I wouldn't count them as a separate race since the timeline of ancient High Rock Men mixing with elves is very gradual rather than distinct, its already all covered by the Bretons. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Synonymity with Navbox

There seems to be some misconception that the page and navbox need to be completely synonymous with each other. This is not at all a requirement and is generally bad practice, as the Navbox is made specifically for navigation and by its nature is very minimalistic and simple, while the full page is more complex and can go into topics in a way the Navbox can't. Very few pages have completely identical navboxes, and going out of your way to make them match is only going to cause problems.

It's also not advised to put every race of man you can find under Nede. Nede is an incredibly vague and massively broad term that doesn't have an exact description, and stuffing any early human civilization into it is not a good idea. For years now all Men have just been listed under Men on this page without the needing to subcategorize them as Nedes. Ones like al-Hared and Men-of-Ge are never called Nede and just fit certain criteria (just said they were "herded alongside" Nedes), ones like Keptu are inconsistent (some call them Nede, others explicitly say they are different things), and many are just tribes of Men that are never called Nede and might not even fit the criteria (see Kothringi, Orma, Yespest, Horwalli, etc). For these reasons, avoid subgrouping these under Nede as it is misinformation to blatantly state they are without presenting all the facts. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Plural Naming

Previously I asked about plural links in the page, now I am asking once more, not about the links this time, but the pages themselves. Instead of asking the same thing on each page to the point of spam, I figured that posting this here would be the most efficient way of doing this.

So according to Wikipedia's naming conventions, which UESP seems to largely adhere to (what with the Manual of Style being linked to in the Getting Started page), ethnic and national groups of people are to be listed as plural. As of right now, this only seems to be the case with Reachmen, who have been plural in a singular crowd for a long time now. Even on the Reachmen talk page this was brought up, but it was mentioned that it sounded alien to name the page Reachman.

I do not lean one way or the other on whether Reachman sounds weird or that Reachfolk is an admirable compromise. I argue in favor of a renaming of all of the race pages to plural names, in an effort to adhere to the naming conventions, satisfy those that find some singulars to be alien, and to promote consistency among this page, where alternative names are still listed in plurals despite the current page names and links being singular. Mindtrait0r (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good guide a lot of the time, but since we ended up mostly conforming to the opposite position, I think we should carry on as we are. The only change should be done to the Reachmen page, if we were to make any change at all. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Voiced my opinion here ages ago. The plural is definitely more humanizing and avoids situations where it could be confused with adjective forms or languages. -Dcsg (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dcsg, for the reasons and provided and consistency within the pages themselves. Every race page begins with a bolded, plural race name, as it is choppy to refer to them otherwise in a broad, encompassing way. I don't see any real reason to keep them the way they are other than saved time, but there are plenty of reasons to change them. Just look at Men-of-ge. If singular names are better, this would be Man-of-ge, which sounds more like a title than a race. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Reachmen are probably the only race page (alongside some minor entries for various Nedic tribes/subcultures, and Kothringi, who are identical in singular and plural as far as we know.) that is done properly. Sometimes older guidelines on this site are used only because they are old rather than because they are good. I support the change of all main races to plural. (redirects obviously should remain)Tyrvarion (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Heavily agree with Race names (names for most groups and subcultures really- like Druids) being plural. The pages speak of them as a collective, so the title should reflect it. Also agree with plural being more humanising and less confusing, not to mention the singulars can indeed just sound "odd", even if grammatically correct CoolBlast3 (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that they sound better, lots of that is a personal opinion. It's just the name of the page, it's not about grammar or in sentences or anything. Jeancey (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(←) The benefits of plurality extend beyond the subjective matter of looking better. As previously mentioned, the Wikipedia style guide supports pluralized race names. While we don't follow strict adherence to the guide, it is a baseline. There should be a good reason for deviating from them, and so far, no such reason has been provided, as majority opinion has favored plurality. Additionally, the alternate names on this page cannot be changed to singles, leaving this odd current state of singular names but plural alternatives. Imagine if we made "Nord (a.k.a. Children of the Sky)" into "Nord (a.k.a. Child of the Sky)" - this usage has been used one time in-universe and it is unclear if it actually means Nord in synonimity. For cohesion within this page, plurals should be adopted. There is absolutely no argument in support of keeping race names singular whilst alternatives remain plural. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Completely overhauled page structure

Lore:Races is a glorified Category page. It's not a lore article for "Race", it's a "List of races", like you might find on Wikipedia.

To make this article infinitely more useful AND a lot easier to parse, it should become similar to Bestiary, Flora, Places, Minerals, et al. which use transclusions from the main articles. There are not enough entries to constitute Races A, Races B, ...; but it could be handled similar to Lore:Minerals, where they're divided by type (like they already are on the current article.)

In this case, shorter individual articles like Lore:Horwalli would be consolidated into Lore:Races. (The Horwalli example is literally a two-sentence article with one citation) Achernar1 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes glorified Category pages are very useful to our readers. They are easy to scan and understand at a glance and I know from history this particular page is often linked to from various elder scrolls forums to help explain the details (especially for new fans). Races is not like the other pages (Bestiary, Flora, Places, Minerals) where are are a huge number of entries. There are few enough entries to deal with them on one page. Because of this, I would be against changing this page into a prose-style transclusion page. --Jimeee (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed in the Discord. I'm going to transcribe the major points made from there over to here in an effort to engage in some on-site discussion.

• The Daedra category is incomplete, missing such entries as Dremnaken, Daedric Titans, Banekin, Clannfear, Crow Daedra, Winged Twilights, and others, all with confirmed intelligence on the metric of speaking Tamrielic. Additionally, many fringe cases of what exactly a Daedric race is exist, such as Omens and Daedra Lords, who are described as their own species but appear as others. We propose it is collapsed here, as the Daedra lore article has a more expansive list and offers an explanation as to what qualifies.
• Beastfolk is a term that is used liberally and without any justification. Even within the beastfolk lore article, the definition of beastfolk is notably absent. Is the grouping a miscellaneous category used for whatever doesn't fit as a human or elf? If that's the cause what is the point of the other category? Spirits? That does not match with the inclusion of the Ice Tribes, nor the Grabbers whose very existence is mentioned only once with no physical descriptions. Is the distinction of a beast race simply that they are called beastfolk? Then it would be time to remove the Minotaurs and Lilmothiit from the equation (unless I have missed something, which is totally possible). Is the distinction one of animalistic properties? That would make some sense, but I have yet to see this explanation offered at any point in-universe or even in out-of-universe canon. This also leaves no justification for the inclusion of the Frost Giants, unless Trolls are considered animals despite their shown literacy (aware this could just be an easter egg but we can't just dismiss it). Lastly, though I will touch on subraces more in my next point, Khajiit born as Ohmes or Ohmes-raht are either near-identical to Bosmer or men/elves respectively. We propose a conversation on what exactly a beastfolk is and a consensus reached with meets the criteria of all above points and inclusions.
• As-is, the subbreeds of Argonians and Khajiit are listed under their overarching race despite the same not being said for the Corelanya, Nibenese, Colovians, Rim-Men, Iron Orcs, Malahk-Orcs, and so on. This could, in theory, be justified with a physiological difference. Indeed, the different strains of Khajiit and Argonians are described as physically different. However, Wood Orcs are seen in ESO and are physically different from other Orcs, having a tan skin tone among other differences. We propose that, due to these not being races but rather subraces, and because of the exclusion of others, these subbreeds are collapsed, potentially being moved to their own lore page as Lore:Subraces to compliment the existing navbox. Mindtrait0r (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Daedra category - yes I agree that this one is getting out of control and some may be a grey areas so collapsing it to just Daedra and link off the the main page i'd agree with.
• Beastfolk is of course a term in universe but it would help to define it better with sources. For example, i'm not sure how Hadolid made it into the beastfolk section. Maybe that whole section needs to be re-examined.
• Subbreeds for Argonians and Khajiit vaild and should be included - the examples you gave that are missing are not comparable. Corelanya are a clan of Altmer, not a sub-breed. Nibenese, Colovians and to a lesser extent Rim-Men are cultural variants of Imperials. Iron Orcs and Wood Orcs are still racial Orcs, but defined by geography.--Jimeee (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with Jimeee for the most part (also Hadolids are confirmed beastfolk).

To respond to the original post, I can't say copying the format for minerals and flora is the best way to do it, we can't compare rocks and plants to entire cultures of people; besides, pages like Lore:Mer already pretty much do what you're suggesting. And no, we can't delete Horwalli and reduce it to a section, this wiki already has a massive list page problem and I can't list all the reasons why we're moving away from that here... besides that, you're not seriously talking about comparing races and declaring some more worthy than others? You do see the massive, major issue with that... right? I do think the page could use a section on mixed race children or something, and a header at the top like Lore:Minerals has leading to racial topics, but for the most part the page does what its supposed to: list races in an easy to find way and bold the playable ones.

As for Daedra its not about sentience but about how their biology is shared with all humanoid mortals, the term humanoid daedra appears in lore and is pretty straight forward, there's no need to overthink it. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot to be said about whether something is a race, "subrace" (which is an awful term), culture, etc. but UESP shouldn't be making these decisions. Lore:Minerals tries to make it clear that the delineations used are purely for wiki purposes, while Template:Lore Undead does a terrible job at doing that, but it simply isn't something that can apply to races.

"As for Daedra its not about sentience but about how their biology is shared with all humanoid mortals," isn't this super irrelevant for this page, especially considering this page also includes Hist, Dragons, and so on? If Lore:Races is to list daedra, it should either list all of them or only "Daedra". It's Lore:Daedra's job to list all the individual species. Any attempt to list only the "humanoid" ones comes off as extremely gameplay-ey and doesn't at all belong in lorespace. When it comes to sapience; Creeper, a scamp, talks in TES3; Watchers and ruinachs talk in ESO, and so on. No metric can be used to separate "daedric races" that doesn't involve original research.

The term Beastfolk, perhaps unfortunately, has become a staple of the setting's lore. Most beastfolk are not at all related to each other (unlike men, mer, et'ada, and so on). I understand why it's used in this article, but the term is used very liberally throughout lorespace. On the Discord, it came up that Lizard Bulls are only ever called "beasts" (as in, animals/savages), never "Beastfolk". Rat and Canine Akaviri were called "Beastfolk" on UESP for a long time despite no sources referring to them as such. In-universe, beastfolk is a purely racist term that men and mer use to refer to anything other than themselves, and UESP should not baselessly call things beastfolk.

-Achernar1 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I've found something that might be useful in classifying the beastfolk. Also, whether or not beastfolk is a racist term at its core is unimportant; its widespread usage across TES makes it the standard, just like Black Marsh being used over Argonia. Ri'Zakar even uses the term beastfolk and specifically says it is a source of great pride, but I digress. Back to the point. Generic dialogue in Morrowind acknowledges the cultural divide between the beast races, so we can ignore that as it is an in-universe categorizational flaw. Secondly, Guide Culast in ESO confirms that Argonians and Sload fit into the categorization of Betmer, despite having no elvish traits or ancestry that I know of. The generic dialogue mentioned earlier also groups Imga, Giants, and Goblins in there. So, the term is wide-encompassing in-universe. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(←) I've compiled all I could find on who exactly is called a beast race here. As it stands, Lizard Bulls, Dreugh, Frost Giants, Grummites, Lamias, and Lilmothiit are never referred to as beast races in any official source I can find, and even unofficial sources are limited. If there is a line stating that beastfolk are classified by animalistic features, I would be willing to cross the assumption gap to keep most of these guys in (except for Frost Giants). However, I've yet to find anything of the sort. Mindtrait0r (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Dreugh, Grummites, Lamias, and Lilmothiit all meet the definition of a beast race and need to be included here in some capacity. Not sure what Frost Giants should be under honestly, but they're definitely a distinct race. —⁠Legoless (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The game guide says "Hidden throughout the Forgotten Vale are shallow caves where a race of Frost Giants dwell. These huge and sinewy beasts each carry a unique Paragon Stone." so do with that what y'all will. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The definition of a beast race is exactly what I'm looking for and cannot find, Legoless. Nowhere in canon have I found anything detailing the criteria. The animalistic traits criteria seems to have been invented by UESP and directly contradicts the inclusion of Giants and Goblins. I'd be willing to overlook those as exceptions if this was an in-universe accepted or even proposed rule for beast races but I can't find it. As for the Frost Giants, other creatures such as wolves are described as beasts, so I think its inconclusive to use the term beast as an assumed equivalent to beastfolk. Mindtrait0r (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that Lilmoth should be fine, given that they are described as believed to be related to Khajiit. While it does not say anything directly, I believe it's more than enough for inclusion of them. As for the term 'beast race' for the betmer, it is used in Morrowind dialogue about them: "each Beast race is as culturally and physically distinct from one another as it is from Elven and Manish races".

Hmm, alright. That makes sense. Lilmothiit and Frost Giants are good, then. Grummites, Dreugh, Lamias, and Lizard Bulls are still up in the air, though. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare any of these creatures to a wolf. We use "race" on the wiki to define sapient creatures, including everything from Dragons to Dremora to Dreugh. You are not going to find an official source describing many of these obscure species as "betmer" but I do not think that is sufficient grounds for their exclusion from the races list. Frog-people, squid-people, snake-people, fox-people are all beastmen. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Mindtrait0r has a point that its not clear how a "race/beast race" is being defined exactly. TES don't give us a concrete definition and on this wiki we seem to use sapience as a (if not the main) qualifier. If we have our own rationale for how we define what is a race, then that really needs to be explained to readers in the intro. Something to the effect of "While TES doesn't define what a race/beast race exactly is, we are using the following attributes to define blah blah". Yes, once can argue this veers into original research territory, but thats another conversation. --Jimeee (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Also just by way of additional citation, here is a developer interview specifying that Grummite and Spriggan are both a "race". —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

(←) I'm fine with an original research explanation here to clear this up. Nearly all of the Beastfolk have animalistic traits, including the four remaining ones. If it means we can get a consensus and make the page better, then IAR is applicable. Mindtrait0r (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Original research is not ideal, but it's more ideal than having no baseline at all. I will hesitantly agree with Mindtrait0r, and add that if a consensus is reached, these "rules" should be added to their respective articles. (Lore:Beastfolk desperately needs more citations and more than 2 sentences in the body of the article.) I also think that some sort of "What is a race?" would be useful for Lore:Races - I understand this would also require some amount of OR, but I'm sure if we tried, it could be worded in a way that is both informative and doesn't feel too out of line. -Achernar1 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding inclusion criteria or a definition of race to the page, similar to what we already do for Lore:Artifacts, Lore:Factions, Lore:Flora, Lore:People, etc. —⁠Legoless (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added an introductory paragraph that dictates the categorization parameters. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Kothri vs Kothringi

I made an edit recently on the Nede and Kothringi lore pages. The jist was that I removed the assumption that the Kothri were the Nedic ancestors of the Kothringi. Dcking20 made a good point when he reverted the edits and we discussed it on their talk page, that being that the Adabal-a's seperate mention of the Kothri from Nede is most likely a simple innaccuracy rather than an intentional seperation. However, I see no compelling proof that Kothri equal Kothringi other than a mere similarility of name, of which precedent dictates should not constitute combination in the lorespace. I refer to the Men-of-ket, who were previously conflated with the Ket Keptu until they were seperated for lack of significant evidence in-universe comparing them. I argue that the same applies here. Even if the Kothringi are indeed the descendants of Nedes (this is only in-universe speculation; 'some people' say this), the term Kothri is never used as a substitute for Kothringi. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

These guys are definitely related to Kothringi, the question is whether they were their early Nedic ancestors, or just an alternative name for Kothringi. Both sound plausible but the latter is easier to display. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Searching for Kothri nets only The Adabal-a and Water-getting girl, neither of which say anything of the Kothringi or their notable features. I find that the precedent of the Men-of-Ket's seperation from the Ket Keptu covers this naming similarity and should not be taken on assumption. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think they are definitely related to Kothringi. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Kothri are ancestors of Kothringi" is blatant original research, "Kothri and Kothringi are different names of the same thing" is an obvious inference and clearly intended by devs, "Kothri and Kothringi are unrelated" is a dishonest conclusion. —Achernar1 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I can settle with that. As far as updating the site goes, the three pages that mention the Kothri outside of the bookspace each mention one of two conclusions. Lore:Nede both states that Kothri are equal to Kothringi and that they are explicitly their ancestors, Lore:Races says that they are equal, and Lore:Kothringi states that they are their ancestors. If we are ruling out the ancestors bit as original research, are we defaulting to them being equal or replacing all three instances with a more vague 'probably related' type conclusion? Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Gotta go with them being equal. In the context its presented Kothri is made to sound like an archaic name for Kothringi, kind of like when Nedes are called Nedelings or Bosmer are called Boiche. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason Kothri being 1:1 Kothringi doesn’t jive is because we have sources that explicitly label Kothringi as descendants of Nedes whereas Kothri are labeled among actual Nedic tribes. Furthermore Kothringi are aboriginal humans of Black Marsh whereas Kothri are living in Cyrodiil in both the Adabala and water getting girl. If we aren’t comfortable claiming them the ancestors of Kothringi that’s fine but we cannot conflate the two outright even more so because the timelines don’t match with the Kothri being a Nedic/Nedic era tribe and the Kothringi being descendants of a Nedic tribe. Dcking20 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Lizard Men

I added Lizard Men, but opposition has led to me pulling them for now to discuss here. My reasoning is that they are explicitly referred to as a race on pg. 79 of the Arena Player's Guide. Similar justification for their inclusion was brought up above on this talk page, with Grummites, Spriggans, Hadolids, Fauns, and Frost Giants being included by merit of their being called a race. Additionally, entries such as the Lizard Bulls, Fauns, Hadolids, and Marsh Giants have just about as much confirmed intelligence as the lizard men do. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I argue that almost all of those counterpoints have more in favor for their intelligence as there multiple sources and pieces of evidence backing them up. Hadolids, Fauns, Frost Giants and Grummites I have mant counterpoints for their intelligence.

But for Lizard Men, besides being called a race in the single source. It also claims "there is nothing human about them" again this is Arena days so human was used to mean the intelligent people more often. It also states "their use of language only extends so far as communciating the location of prey". To me that sounds like how you'd explain how something like a wolf has "language". The Lizard Men are definetly some early installement wierdness too but thats neither here nor there.

Tarponpet (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2023 (EST)

I concur with what Tarponpet said about how vague their level of intelligence is. Besides that, the examples given (ie Fauns & Frost Giants) have all appeared in modern games where the definition of "race" is better known, whereas Lizard Men only come up in Arena, when it wasn't a concern. Back then, Argonians were closer to Kothringi in terms of being silver-skinned humanoids, with some similarity to Tsaesci who had reptilians features, and had a LOT of Roman influence in their racial culture. This later got retconned by Redguard where they're humanoid lizards all the way through with Mesoamerican-inspired culture, which is almost the same as Arena's Lizard Men, therefore making them very synonymous. Argonians are even called "lizard men" a ton in modern games.

Ultimately, Lizard Men are a retconned part of the franchise that they would like us to forget. There are possible explanations, like maybe they're Argonians of a mad hist who went feral, or reverted to their Helstrom Ancestor Lizard intelligence thanks to a lack of hist sap, but its anyone's guess. These factors make it hard to qualify them as a race. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Lizard Men are beasts and belong in the bestiary, not on the races page. Their resemblance to Argonians is superficial. If they ever appear in the franchise again, maybe we can reconsider, but the Arena manual makes it clear that "lizard man" is somewhat of a misnomer for these carnivorous reptiles. —⁠Legoless (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)