Lore talk:Daedra

"True" Daedra

"Technically, Malacath, Mehrunes Dagon, Sheogorath, and Meridia are not "true" Daedra. These are beings transformed into Daedra by various unpleasant circumstances." this is untrue in the cases of dagon and Sheogorath i know of no mention of dagon being anything other than i true deadric prince and Sheogorath is Jyggalag who is a true deadric prince these two names should be removed if no one else will i will if you know of a reason not to say it pleas Diobern 16:34, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Calling of the sixteen "not true daedra" is sort of iffy, though their special status could me neutrally mentioned. Malacath is Trinimac who was eaten by Boethia- very well documented. Meridia was chastised and cast down by Akatosh according to the Census of Daedra Lords, a document written for and referenced in the 3rd PGE. Dagon supposedly found his true form after being destroyed by Alduin, according to Nordic folklore and a document that is concept work for a possible game in Skyrim.24.31.156.165 18:56, 8 November 2008 (EST)

i would like to see the text about dagon Diobern 19:18, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Fight number One, best read with mead. http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/aldudagga.shtml

thanks for the link. i dont think nordic mythology is good evadance that dagon isent a "true" deadric lord could it be rewriten to say he might not be? Diobern 11:13, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Myths are true, so the only thing disqualifying it is that we hear about it in Nordic mythology alone. As I said, I wouldn't touch "true" daedra lord with a ten-foot pole, although a possible special status could be mentioned.Temple-Zero 13:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry but I can't let that pass. Courtesy of dictionary.com we find that a "myth" is "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.". If you disagree, then please give me Santa Claus' email address. Or Odin would be good, since this is about Nordic mythology. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 16:11, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I just deleted my original response in order to give you the benefit of the doubt. Were you under the impression that I was talking about the real world in a talk page regarding a fake world?Temple-Zero 16:25, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I have changed the article to reflect this discussion. If anyone has any objections, I would be happy to hear them.

Exposure to daedric weapons/armor= madness?

"Long term exposure to Daedric weaponry or armor invariably results with a slow descent into madness." I have never heard this mentioned before. Can anyone confirm this? Has it been mentioned in a book or by a person in one of the games? — Unsigned comment by Blue deep (talk) on 14 January 2009.

Good question. Most of the rest of the passage is probably based on Garothmuk gro-Muzgub's dialogue:

Daedric weapons are made from raw ebony which has been refined using the craft and magical substances of the lesser minions of Oblivion. The process is not a pleasant one for the Daedra involved, and the weapons retain echoes of preternaturally prolonged suffering endured during manufacture. Daedric weapons are the most rare and expensive weapons known in Tamriel.

But I can't see where the statement about descending into madness comes from. I've added a VN tag to the article. --Nephele^Talk 21:20, 18 January 2009 (EST)

If you look at the book Tamrielic Lore from Morrowind, the reason for the short term ownership of a daedric artifact is that ownership is based merely on its Daedra Prince's whim and if he/she decides it needs to change ownership, it does. In other words, the reason given on this page for short term ownership is wrong. The only artifact I can think of that drives its owner mad is Umbra, but Umbra's not a DAEDRIC artifact at all. I think that section is pretty much a fanfic and should be removed.

I've removed the statement. Peterb 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Daedra Creature History

I think this page could be improved by perhaps having pictures of each example of daedra creature (hunger, atronach etc) from every game they are in, and noting which game they first appeared in, and a comparison of stats and physical appearances from the different games. Does anyone agree?

Remorse1994 15:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I agree, but perhaps all of that information is already covered in the bestiary? This page would be quite lengthy if it had that much information and that many pictures.

Chunk of Ham 02:33, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Separate Princes

(moved from the article)

(I think they were to seperate princes, but since the other lords feared Jyggalag's power, they sealed him into another prince. Can anyone confirm or falsify this?)

Sheogorath grew out of Jyg like Hyde out of Jekyl.71.244.115.20 12:23, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

What classifies something as a Daedra?

I understand this sounds like a simple question, but there are so many of them in plains of Oblivion and I was wondering what divided them from Adadra and other. I know they had no part in the creation of mundus but when looking up the history of vampires and stumbled on about how Molag Bal created the fist one to spite Ark'ay. The points I wish to make is, can Daedra create life, wouldn't that make vampires daedra, and can Daedra bestow mortals with god like powers? Void walker 19:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Aedra and Daedra differ in that whilst both were created by Anu and Padomay, the Aedra are closer to Anu (representing stasis) and the Daedra are closer to Padomay (representing chaos). Vampires are merely cursed mortals, but I do not know if the Daedra can bestow such powers. It would technically fit with lore if they could grant mortals abilities, yet I can't think of any examples where they gave them godlike powers Corvus 21:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

They have their own god-like abilities, like being able to be reborn in the fires of creation. In Oblivion it is shown that Mythic Dawn Cultists can open up Oblivion Gates, that power could have been bestowed upon them by Daedra or by Mehrunes Dagon himself. --Arch-Mage Matt^Talk 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Word Deadra

I did not know where to put this, so i thought here would be best. I think that it is worth making a note somewhere That daeara is the welsh word meaning 'earth'. as Deadra are of the ground and Aedra of the heavens?AdairTheNord 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that the developers used that to name them. =D JackTurbo95 10:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Who knows where the word originated. But we usually don't put real world etymology on the wiki. Legoless 11:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jyggalag

Jyggalag is not included in the list of daedric princes but shouldn't he? Evlydia 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated. —Legoless 20:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly goes into a Daedric weapon?

Does the heart contain the soul of a Daedra? If so, then is the Daedra stuck in the weapon forever?--71.202.138.39 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Garothmuk gro-Muzgub puts it best: "Daedric weapons are made from raw ebony which has been refined using the craft and magical substances of the lesser minions of Oblivion. The process is not a pleasant one for the Daedra involved, and the weapons retain echoes of preternaturally prolonged suffering endured during manufacture. Daedric weapons are the most rare and expensive weapons known in Tamriel." Forging Daedric weaponry with a Daedra Heart is simplifying the procedure. —Legoless 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Knights of Order

According to http://www.imperial-library.info/node/2234 which was written by Bethesda employees, the Knights of Order are not properly classified as Daedra, but some other type of servant. This might explain why Shivering Isles described them as being mindless/soulless. They probably don't even have a spirit to go to the Waters of Oblivion and return, but are just made endlessly like automatons. Regardless, they might not belong on this page.99.127.173.78 06:31, 19 October 2012 (GMT)

Creatures native to Oblivion

Can we assume that all creatures native to any plane of oblivion are daedra? or are there also "normal" animals/beasts living there? (I mean creatures like the Elytra or Grummites of the Shivering Isles or the Bonemen of the Soul Cairn) — Unsigned comment by SarthesArai (talk) at 14:21 on 11 May 2013

Short answer, no. Daedra are those whose origins are not traced back to creation. Between a daedra and a typical natural animal, however, a third group has emerged: natural creatures which have been heavily influenced by daedric forces. Shivering Isles creatures have been consciously left off the daedra list on this page in the past, and I assume it's because they are believed to fall in this third category. As for the Bonemen, I have no idea what category they fall into, but they're basically zombies, and zombies are just re-purposed mortals, so I don't think they qualify. Finally, I believe all the listed creatures were explicitly confirmed to be daedra at some point or another (in game data, in dialogue, etc.); I don't think any of their statuses had to be inferred. I could be wrong. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 02:46, 13 May 2013 (GMT)

Genders

Why are the Daedra considered genderless or have unknown gender where, in some cases, they're easily identifiable as male/female (either by their body or voice), set as X gender in the game code, and usually even referred to as he/she? --121.74.229.217 01:29, 15 January 2015 (GMT)

That's just the way the lore defines them. I think that only applies to Daedric Princes though, and not any Daedra. While the Princes may prefer to appear as one gender or another, they are not bound by that (eg, Boethiah has appeared as both before). Humanoid Daedra like the Dremora, Aureal and Mazken do have a defined gender. --Enodoc (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2015 (GMT)

It applies to all Daedra (and dragons as well). —Legoless (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2015 (GMT)

So you're saying that when the golden saints / dark seducers talked about their males being weaker in SI, they were just making things up? Daedra don't reproduce, so there's no need for a fusion of two different genotypes, but still, there at least some races that have two variations which share the characteristic features of the two genders of man, mer and beastfolk (races where this is known include the Golden Saints (m/f), Dark Seducers (m/f), Dremora (m/f), Spider Daedra (m/f) and possibly Flame Atronachs (m/f)). As I already said, they also call themselfes "male" or "female", and each vestige seems to keep its gender at its rebirths (See Staada). Judging a daedras gender by using their set gender in the game files in games where there is only one form of this type of daedra is a wrong thing though, as these values may be kept as their default, male. Daedric Princes, on the other hand, seem to be able to change their gender, as well as their entire appearance, at will (or some other factors unknown to us), but they are much more powerfull. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 19:48, 15 January 2015 (GMT)

See this discussion. In truth we have no hard evidence that even the Daedric Princes have the power to change gender. All we know is that some of the Princes do, and that Daedra choose their physical form and emulate mortals. If we're going to draw the conclusion that all the Princes can change gender, why not logically extend it to all Daedra? It's been listed as fact for a long time, both on the wiki and in the wider community (TIL springs to mind), and I think it's a fair assumption to make even without a direct source. —Legoless (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2015 (GMT)

Personally, I agree with what Enodoc and SarthesArai said. At least some of the Princes appeared as both male and female in the past, and conversely, there has never been a case of a lesser Daedra changing gender, ever. It seems logical to me that the lesser Daedra do have a defined gender, and the Princes don't (or at least some of them don't). --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 02:18, 16 January 2015 (GMT)

I would think that if a daedra, if referred to as male or female, should be referred to as male or female on their lore and/or game page and not unknown (as well as dragons). However, if their gender changes throughout the series, then I think it's fair to use the unknown state.

@Legoless, remember the Princes are Greater Daedra, having, obviously, greater abilities than their lesser brethren. Unless it states a lesser daedra has had their gender changed at any point, similar to Boethia, then I don't think it's fair to make that assumption --121.74.229.217 04:00, 16 January 2015 (GMT)

Daedric princes odd link

The link for the Daedric princes brings you right back to this page rather than to their respective lore pages. That's kind of pointless. I think this should be changed Iituti (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Which link? Lore:Daedric Princes works. —Legoless (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

On Daedra Lords

I find that the page might benefit from the inclusion of the less often mentioned tiers of Daedra not considered princes, yet are above the lesser Daedra in tier. In ESO Live - Episode 18 (52m 8s), Loremaster Lawrence Schick introduces the concept of subspheres ruled by Daedra Lords distinct from the princes. The Daedric Lord of Fishing, whose info is obscure and limited at the moment, serves under Hircine to embody the subsphere to Hircine's hunt that is fishing. Some Daedra lords have their own realms, and others serve the princes. This might imply a connection to the Daedra lords of Daggerfall and Battlespire serving under Mehrunes Dagon. However, a Daedra lord appears to be above a Demiprince, which is considered a by-blow of the former or of a Daedric Prince.

Such a section could also reference positions such as a demiprince or duke, such as Fa-Nuit-Hen or Kh-Utta, duke of scamps. It seems that the term Demiprince is sometimes used to refer to a being of part 'ada blood regardless of Aedric or Daedric influence, such as Morihaus or Umaril the Unfeathered. Whether or not this usage is correct is unknown.

--Iceflame542 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there any mention of the Prince of Fishing outside ESO Live? —Legoless (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, but if I remember correctly, the Bad Man's Hallows in Glenumbra were connected to a pocket plane of Oblivion that was said to be ruled by some minor Daedra Lord. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 23:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that was just a natural cave on Tamriel that was occupied by an invading Daedra who posed as the Bad Man (and only for that year's festival). That said, there are definitely pocket realms ruled over by powerful Lesser Daedra and we've met quite a lot of them. There's very little else to say on the matter, however. —Legoless (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It definetly is more than a natural cave. To cite Eveline Vette, "We're directly beneath the tree. Except it's not a tree. It's a minor Daedric lord. The tree's roots are the key. He channels dark energy through them, to keep this pocket of Oblivion from collapsing upon itself. Destroying the roots will hurt hem."

Some mages summoned that "minor Daedric lord", who then posed as the bad man, and created his own plane of oblivion looking like a tree. From what I recall, it was not an ordinary Daedra. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 18:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 18:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I was remembering it as literal roots. Might be worth making a page similar to this if it's an Oblivion realm. —Legoless (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Daedra or Daedroth

I created an account particularly for this purpose (sorry to nitpick with my first post? action? on this site, I am new to wikis). When it comes to terminology, shouldn't the article be consistent in referring to daedroth in the plural or singular form? For example the introduction refers to singular daedroth correctly in one sentence, while referring to them as "daedra" in the next. Thank you!

Hathro 5:30, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Actually only one instance in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

Hathro 6:14, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Corrected, thank you for pointing it out! -- SarthesArai ^Talk 13:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should be using the word daedroth at all, except to refer to the crocodile guys. "Daedra" is the standard singular form and has been for a while now. —Legoless (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a point there. I'm pretty sure that most characters use the word Daedra even when singular. I'm finding it hard to find cases of in game of references to any singular daedra as daedroth, whether dialogue or books other than On Oblivion. --Hathro (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC) (I didn't know about the whole four tildes thing until now, which is why I suddenly switched to UTC :D)

I agree as well. I had changed the "daedra" to "daedroth" for consistency within the page, but I don't recall anyone saying "daedroth" when refering to generic daedra. -- SarthesArai ^Talk 13:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't find any source more recent than Morrowind that uses "Daedroth" to refer to anything other than the specific crocodilian type of daedra. I think we should move mention of Daedroth as the singular to a note and only use Daedra in the article itself. -- Hargrimm^(T) 22:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Even Morrowind does this; that game itself says that the Daedroth : Daedra :: singular : plural distinction is an archaism by the era of that game. Even that much is asserted in the voice of a fictional writer; many of the games' fictional writers get stuff wrong (and this is intentional on part of the developers), so the one "source" that says it isn't even necessarily reliable. I do think it should remain, but it's fine a just a note. — Darklocq ^☎ ¢ 12:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Aliens

Concerning how the "realms of Oblivion" are in actuality planets in deep space, would it be appropriate to mention somewhere on this page how Daedra are aliens or extra terrestrials to the beings of Nirn? I would do it myself but I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to use real-world terms that may not exist in a fictional universe. --Rezalon (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A bit too invested in the real world, in my opinion. Most on Nirn just recognize them as what they are—being much more aware of the cosmic entities and such in their universe than we are of any in our own—rather than labeling them 'aliens', so it would be a trivial mention at best. Plus, like you said, the concept of "extra terrestrial" could be non-existent in TES, and it very likely is. Korodac (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the realms of oblivion are "planets" comes pretty much entirely from OOG content. There are references that could be interpreted as such in game, but it's not 100% and most wouldn't even be read that way unless you are trying to. We wouldn't include it here at all. Jeancey (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's in any "official" materials, it could be put into a footnote. Might be of interest to some (it is to me – I find it a big surprise, as I'd thought they were coming from a completely different dimension or plane of existence), not teleporting over from other planets. — Darklocq ^☎ ¢ 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Good Daedra and Bad Daedra

The game Morrowind makes extensive use of the terms Good Daedra and Bad Daedra in NPC dialogue and book material. I'm not steeped enough in the lore to be certain of the definitions, or if there even are any, but these terms need to be addressed, since they're used in-game. From what I can tell, the Good Daedra are the Almsivi Tribunal and their direct servants, while the Bad Daedra are , well, all other Daedra. But this may not be very precise. — Darklocq ^☎ ¢ 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Chimer came up with the Good/Bad concept. The Good are Boethiah, Azura, and Mephala. The Bad are specifically known as the Lore:House of Troubles. See Lore:The Anticipations. This note should probably go on the main Lore:Daedric Princes page though. --Jimeee (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just want these terms to redirect somewhere, since people will try to look them up (I did!). — Darklocq ^☎ ¢ 12:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Naming Origins

on reddit, Julian Jenson gave the reason why and how he came up the name for the Daedra as well as how the name was invented for them in arena. redditDOTcom/r/Daggerfall/comments/7b4vh4/ask_me_anything_im_julian_jensen_programmer/dpglvuj/ should we include this in a section on this page? Chizmad (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He is talking about the Gods (as in the Eight Divines) and not the Daedra. We have already the names listed as an easter egg on the Daggerfall page here. --Ilaro (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you figure he's speaking about the Eight Divines, as opposed to the Daedra? He says: "The Daedra are pretty much like fantasy demons," followed by "At the time, I was reading a variety of Plato, and came to think of "Phaedrus" and "Phaedo" and from there it wasn't much of a leap to "Daedra." He also specifically notes that Daedra were created to serve as antagonistic forces "where a god would be too much," explicitly differentiating them from the Eight Divines. Kitkat^{Talk•Contrib•Email} 15:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ilaro... No im meaning the Daedra, he says right there that Daedra were named after Phaedrus and Phaedo. hes talking directly about the Daedra

i did not bring up the 9 divines at all, i was talking about Daedra specifically. in full context the original question that was asked referred to Daedra and Daedra summoning and the culture behind Daedra... https://www.reddit.com/r/Daggerfall/comments/7b4vh4/ask_me_anything_im_julian_jensen_programmer/dpglvuj/?context=3 he never mentions Divine, or any of the 9 divines in this answer he made her to a question about Daedra. and how he didnt want any religious affiliation with them that can be drawn from earth culture in general, which is why he chose Daemon (similar to a linux term), and then chose a term similar to Phaedrus... i also dont think he was referring to them as having baggage that denotes them as opposites to the 9 divines. i think he wanted them to seem Neutral, and depending on perspective, they could be God or demon in someones mind.

mostly i wanted the naming to be put in a easter egg section on the names origins. Chizmad (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I should have followed the link instead of going to reddit page myself and finding the wrong comment. Yes, I agree with your statement above. --Ilaro (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an Easter Egg, and they were not named after Phaedrus and Phaedo. Easter Eggs are things in the game, and those opposites provided the inspiration for the adaption of "daemons" into "daedra". In order to place this on the page an entirely different approach must be taken, the one that is actually of more interest than how they came up with the name, which actually has very little use and point, given how many names they had to invent for the game making this not special at all. The point about how the daedra were envisaged as something inbetween mortals and gods, not how they ended up as slightly lesser but opposite gods (basically can't be killed and the player would die trying to take one on single-handedly), is of much more interest, and can be used to show where the name derived from too. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This sort of thing is relevant to the page, and should probably be handled in the same way as the note on Lore:Vivec_(god). --Jimeee (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you were trying to refute my comments but that link backs me. That note is not about how they came up with his name, but about what he was inspired by, exactly the kind of note I was saying was relevant and proposing/backing. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 16:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not refuting or making a point about the content of the note itself - rather whatever the note is, it could be handled under the "Notes" header with an OOG ref. --Jimeee (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed what the Notes section is for, per our lorespace guidelines. I say go ahead and add it, seems like relevant trivia. —Legoless (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dro-m'Athra

We might want to review the inclusion of Dro-m'Athra in the list of Daedra races. While we have one source that says: Insofar as 'Daedra' means 'not-Aedra,' the term can certainly be applied to the dro-m'Athra; perhaps the Tharns hoped to employ them in the same manner as they use the Daedra of Oblivion. implying they are different from the Daedra of Oblivion. We have another source that says it's wrong to even list them as Daedra: Something unique. Some mages believe they're Daedra who serve the dark Prince, Namira. Others contend that the dro-m'Athra are just mortal Khajiiti souls held in her thrall. Neither definition sounds right to me. and this is supported by the Legends card Dro-m'Athra Reaper that classifies them as a spirit, even though Daedra is a legitimate creature type used in the game. --Ilaro (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it needs to be reviewed, for the same reason we list Knights of Order despite having contradictory references claiming they are not Daedra. It would be better to explain how these entities are different from regular Daedra than to outright remove them in the face of conflicting sources. —Legoless (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing them from the page is not necessary. However, moving them to a notes section might be more appropriate than having them in the main list with the other Daedra. Even the pro-Daedra source is implying they are not really like the Daedra of Oblivion. --Ilaro (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And you mentioned Knight of Order, but that one is confirmed with the Legends card, so we actually have a clear and cut source for it. --Ilaro (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Dro-m'Athra are complicated as they're established as being Khajiit souls turned into dark creatures, which is uncommon for Daedra to previously have been mortals, but we can see this occurring in Vestiges. Given that Vastarie's dialogue implies Khajiit souls have both a unique Anuic and Padomaic nature (created by Aedra and changed by Azura), I think Dro-m'Athra are just souls that have encompassed an entirely Padomaic nature and turned into Daedra, but that's just an educated guess. In any case, they are the only known inhabitants of the Scuttling Void, and as Namiira summons them as her soldiers I'm led to believe they're Daedra rather than non-Daedra that live in Oblivion. The Knights of Order was a partial retcon, as an UOL source implied they were once mortals turned into soldiers and not Daedra, but Legends establishing them as Daedra easily takes precedence the way I see it. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

For reference the UOL source is Interview With Two Denizens of the Shivering Isles. There is also dialogue in Shivering Isles which corroborates the artificial nature of the Knights as distinct from normal Daedra, but I have no problem going with the Legends category. I agree with Rim as regards the apparent Daedric nature of dro-m'Athra, as really the distinction from the Daedra of Oblivion seems to be one of Khajiiti theology moreso than anything else. The Moon Bishop's interview really cuts through all that in my opinion, by providing an in-universe Khajiit priest explicitly calling them Daedra. —Legoless (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Altmeri section on the Daedra's involvement

So, there's an issue with the Altmeri section. The Heart of the World doesn't claim that the Daedra didn't participate in the creation of the mortal world. On the contrary, it states that they participated, but became corrupted after the fact. Note the bolded parts:

"He gained many followers. Even Auriel, when told he would become the king of the new world, agreed to help Lorkhan. So they created the Mundus, where their own aspects might live and became the et'Ada. [...] Auriel pleaded with Anu to take them back, but he had already filled their places with something else. His soul was gentler, granting Auriel his Bow and Shield, so that he might save the Aldmer from the hordes of Men. Some had already fallen, like the Chimer, who listened to tainted et'Ada, and others, like the Bosmer, had soiled Time's line by taking Mannish wives."

While the book Aedra and Daedra, which is used as a source in that section, says that it was the Aedra who created the mortal world, it cannot be used as a source for Altmeri theology, as we don't know its authorship and is only attempting to explain the terms for non-elven individuals in relation to the more Man-alligned terms such as "gods" and "demons". The following two statements in the articles are also based around the idea that "Aedra and Daedra" reflects Altmeri religion, when that is clearly not the case, as the Heart of the World shows. -ColovianHastur (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I think its worth noting here that the point at which the "et'Ada" term is used differs between sources. In Before the Ages of Man (also an Altmeri source, by the Sapiarch Aicantar of Shimmerene) its:

The Cosmos formed from the Aurbis [chaos, or totality] by Anu and Padomay. Akatosh (Auriel) formed and Time began. The Gods (et'Ada) formed. Lorkhan convinced -- or tricked -- the Gods into creating the mortal plane, Nirn.

So here we have the term et'Ada being used at the formation of the gods rather than as a result of the world's creation

There is some contrast, also with the Psijic Compensation, where the term et'Ada is applied specifically in the context of spirits dying to create the world, which causes a split in nature between them and the "other magical beings of the Unnatural Realms":

Finally, the magical beings of Mythic Aurbis told the ultimate story -- that of their own death. For some this was an artistic transfiguration into the concrete, non-magical substance of the world. For others, this was a war in which all were slain, their bodies becoming the substance of the world. For yet others, this was a romantic marriage and parenthood, with the parent spirits naturally having to die and give way to the succeeding mortal races.

The magical beings, then, having died, became the et'Ada. The et'Ada are the things perceived and revered by the mortals as gods, spirits, or geniuses of Aurbis. Through their deaths, these magical beings separated themselves in nature from the other magical beings of the Unnatural realms.

Though this probably doesn't matter as much, being no longer accurate to Altmeri religion which has since moved away from those beliefs.

As you say, the Aedra and Daedra as a text is authorless, and so can't really be attributed as being within or without any one culture (other than perhaps that its not Dunmeri because it uses "their" when speaking of them), but it does serve as the text that gives the meaning of the elvish term Aedra. To exclude it creates the conundrum that the text that gives us our understanding of the elvish term Aedra might not accurately reflect elven beliefs, and so what Aedra means either.

That said, personally, I'm not necessarily opposed to editing to reflect the claim in HotW, as the creation myth is arguably a more detailed/extensive account contrasted with BtAoM which is a much more of a shortened bulletpoint summary. And in any case texts that are certainly within a belief system should be prioritized for that belief system.

In which case it might also be important to add the context from Atharaon's interview with Ted Peterson, which claims that the elves claim everyone as formerly an elven ancestor, and decide who remains as such based on who they approve of:

Ted:

"It's important to say that this is just their point of view but not necessarily the right one. It's enough that it feels real, but I always say to my team, don't write the truth. Write around it. Ancestor worship is this important aspect for the elves and so they would be inclined to see everyone as formerly an elven ancestor. Your good relatives are worth praise and your bad relatives you cut off. Elves have a high opinion of themselves so they'd claim the gods as ancestors even if they weren't."

https://en.uesp.net/wiki/General:Ted_Peterson_on_High_Rock_and_Summerset_-_Religion

Given the discrepancy between HotW and BtAoM, perhaps it'd be best to add it as a counterpoint ? As in "some sources claim all spirits are classified as formerly elven ancestors but some are excluded due to losing elven approval, indeed the term "et'Ada", which is used to denote the creators of the world in elven, myth is also applied to the Daedra who are described as "tainted et'Ada". Or something to that effect.

This is actually a fairly major change, and reflects on many other pages, recontextualizing what Aedra means to the elves as more of a social approval thing in general and implicitly inserting the Daedra as creators of Mundus as well (just "tainted" ones who have lost approval). The timeline mentioned in HotW is a good point to be sure, but without a clear distinction the context changes a lot. Best to wait for some more input, I think, not quite sure how to phrase it.--Gleaming Veil (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes. If there are contradictions, they should indeed be mentioned and highlighted. Also, good point about Ted Peterson's comment on Altmer behaviour regarding who they see as ancestors. However, I should point out that the Psijic myth you quoted continues by saying that the Daedra were only born after the creation of the Mundus: "The Daedra were created at this time also, being spirits and Gods more attuned to Oblivion, or that realm closer to the Void of Padomay. This act is the dawn of the Mythic (Merethic) Era." -ColovianHastur (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, very good catch on the Psijic Myth. That is a very interesting point of divergence, sort of brings to mind some other texts like Truth In Sequence to an extent (albeit not the same description). Yeah, I personally agree the content should be adjusted accordingly, reflecting the various sources mentioned.--Gleaming Veil (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Made an attempt at editing the Altmeri section per the discussion, perhaps this new wording will do ?--Gleaming Veil (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)