Lore talk:Bestiary D

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Dreugh Wax[edit]

I do believe that dreugh wax is used to form the armor and weapons...It probably hardens to form their shells, which are useless as they cannot be reshaped.— Unsigned comment by Theos (talkcontribs) at 00:17 on 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Morrowind Daedroth[edit]

Morrowind Daedroths also use Shock magic in addition to their Poison magic. AThousandYoung 07:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You can add that kind of thing yourself though. rpeh •TCE 07:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dremora Lord[edit]

Is your level dependant on the loot dropped by Dremora Lords? At level 10 I encounterd my first outside one (not fro ma cursed gem) and it had Dwarven gear. Sometimes they have Dreugh Club. Do I have to wait to a certain level for them to drop Daedric? 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(I know this is extremely outdated, but....) I'm not sure what the exact leveling is, but you do have to wait a certain time before they start to drop Daedric weapons. Sorry. --Archer7 12:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Draugrs in Skyrim?[edit]

there is a screenshot on elderscrolls.com called Draugr swarm. Should Skyrim be added to the specific games list? — Unsigned comment by Para01 (talkcontribs) at 06:09 on 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Skyrim hasn't come out yet. We will take care of this when the game comes out. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok then. The Para 01:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
So im assuming this also means were going to hold off on dragons too?BenScoHolm 18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. We have Skyrim:Dragon for now. rpeh •TCE 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Are we sure we want to keep the caption to the image of a deer? lol... I vote to keep it but it isn't fitting in with the rest of the bestiary images, however it's a funny reference to "The Sound of Music" Musical. — Unsigned comment by D. Gemini (talkcontribs) at 06:09 on 10 October 2011 (GMT)

I agree, it seems a bit silly. I've changed it. --Legoless 19:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It was a little joke. Sorry. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 19:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No harm done. --Legoless 19:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Before I edit the Dragon section, I just want to clarify that bestiaries include NPCs? There was a dragon in Daggerfall but as an NPC in one very long quest line. — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 02:58 on 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Seperate Lore article for Dremora[edit]

I think there's enough information provided in the game articles for the Dremora to be allowed their own separate Lore-based article, as opposed to just being another part of the Bestiary, or just being assigned a game-based article. They've been part of the series since Battlespire, been recognized as a Race (albeit non-playable by default), as opposed to simply Creatures, since Oblivion, and they have a society and history that is fleshed out just enough to be (un)officially recognized as a major race. I know they are not a race native to Nirn, being Daedra and what-not, but I think they've got what it takes to be listed separately from the other Daedra.

I certainly believe this could work. We already have the Orcs listed on the Bestiary for instances where they were considered Creatures, while still having their own seperate article as a Race. I think that the Dremora deserve a similar treatment, what with being among the most distinct, sentient, and consistent of the Daedra, apart from the Daedric Princes themselves.

Besides, we already have separate articles for nearly all of the Races native to Mundus, even if they have not yet been (or probably never will be) playable in the games, so why not get a start on the Races of Oblivion? I think that only having the "Lore"-based information of the Dremora exist on the Bestiary (in brief), and not giving them an article for further elaboration would do them justice. The game articles are informative, but it doesn't seem right to only give them a race article for "Oblivion" and "Skyrim", but not in "Lore". Bauglir100 00:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dremora should definitely have their own article. However, the sheer amount of information makes this a rather daunting project. If someone's willing to do it, they have my full support. --Legoless 20:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, we could start a little smaller: We could start by creating Race articles for Golden Saint and Dark Seducer, for reasons similar to the Dremora race, but on a somewhat smaller scale. And we already have the three Daedric races listed in Template:Races, so that's a start. Bauglir100 03:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I've had a lore article for the Dark Seducers prepared for some time now (you can see it here). I'd be willing to launch it, but it lacks references. --Legoless 12:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a good article, but there are a few things that should be changed. For one, "Dark Seducer" is the name of the Daedric race. "Mazken" is just the name that the ones that serve Sheogorath use to identify themselves. No matter, though. I'll gladly make the changes myself once it is launched. But there is no need to create another article. Just go to Lore:Dark Seducer, get rid of that pesky Re-direct link, and place the content of your Sandbox article in its place. That's how I got the Dremora article started. Bauglir100 22:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
All Dark Seducer call themselves Mazken, according to the Shivering Isles expansion and developer material such as Interview With Two Denizens of the Shivering Isles. The Seducers from previous games aren't identified as such because the lore is relatively new. Its the broadest term for the different kinds of Seducer Daedra, so it should be the article's title. --Legoless 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
But the Dark Seducers are associated with multiple Daedric Princes, not just Sheogorath. So we could assume that the Dark Seducers that serve Mehrunes Dagon, Malacath, etc. also have unique names for their "races", much like how people in real life have distinct names for different breeds of dogs. And in-game, NPCs of that race are identified as "Dark Seducers", though they are often referred to as "Mazken" by themselves, as well as other inhabitants of the Realm of Madness.
Plus, the Khajiit have different breeds and sub-species, each with distinct names, so who's to say that Dark Seducers don't function in a similar manner? Bauglir100 23:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mazken were created by Sheogorath, so all of them are associated with him, even though not all of them serve him directly. They technically have no loyalties (if Battlespire is to be believed), although it's true that some serve other Daedric Princes, e.g. Dagon. "Mazken" is the collective term for all Seducer enemies, and the name differences in between games is simply an inconsistency which shouldn't affect lore. There are no distinct "races" within the Mazken according to who they serve, and the difference in appearance is down to (from a lore perspective) the Daedras' ability to take whatever form they wish and (from a game design perspective) the development of the series. This is why I would prefer to add references before launching the article, so as to avoid arguments over the legitimacy of the information. --Legoless 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, even if "Mazken" does apply to all Dark Seducers, They should still be referred to as "Dark Seducers" in the article, to make the page more "Lore-friendly". So far, the Dark Seducers are only called "Mazken" in the Shivering Isles expansion of Oblivion, but not in Battlespire, where the Dark Seducers made their "debut", nor in any other possible appearance of the Dark Seducer and/or its variants. It's okay to call them Mazken on their Shivering Isles page, but I think one should refrain from repeatedly addressing them as "Mazken" in their Lore article, until at least one other Elder Scrolls title is released that also calls them "Mazken".
And I think you have enough references to hold it steady for a while. If any more of them are needed, you or someone else can add them later. And instead of launching a whole other article to the site, just remove the re-direct link on Lore:Dark Seducer, and place your information in its place. Like I said, that's how I started the Dremora article. If you still think that it lacks references, just add the information you believe can be proven by the references you have available, and leave the rest on the Sandbox until further notice. Bauglir100 02:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Lore articles are always written based on the newest information. If information from Battlespire conflicts with information from Shivering Isles, the SI info will be used. This is the case here, as in Battlespire the Dark Seducer is a separate enemy from the regular Seducer. If I'm to be launching the article, it will be at Lore:Mazken. --Legoless 02:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Now, let's not get stubborn here. Lore:Dark Seducer already exists as an article, so just use that. You're the one that put it onto the Races Template, after all! And on the Lore article, they should primarily be called "Dark Seducers" instead of "Mazken", for pretty much the same reason as why we don't regularly refer to "Dremora" as "the Kyn" on their related articles, unless it is necessary. If you're going to call them "Mazken", then just use it when referring to the Dark Seducers in Sheogorath's service. I dislike the idea of the Dark Seducer race having a "biased" article written about them in the Lore section, so please keep it "neutral", if you know what I mean.
But if you want, I could take your sandbox article, re-word it in a manner that pleases both of us, and then add it to Lore:Dark Seducer. If anything is to be done with Lore:Mazken, it should be re-directing it to Lore:Dark Seducer, instead of Lore:Bestiary_D, since two articles on the same subject in the same section would be redundant. Bauglir100 03:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

() Article creation is a moot point, and Lore:Mazken already exists as well. It was my mistake adding Dark Seducer to the races template, but I hadn't looked at my sandbox for a number of months so I had forgotten about my intended title. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on using Mazken; if you want, we could look for the community's opinion, but I'm not going to be launching the lore page until some kind of consensus is reached. --Legoless 03:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will have to agree with Mazken as the name. We typically use the proper name for the races (Such as saying Dunmer, Bosmer, or Altmer instead of Dark Elf, Wood Elf, and High Elf respectively), so it is simply a consistency thing, Bauglir. EDIT: And Legoless, I have been filling my sandboxes with articles to play with, and I will answer the call for an editor to create a Dremora article, which I may point out was the original point of the topic. Lore:Dremora is an article already, it seems. Must have missed something in the big wall of text above me... ESQuestion?EmailContribs 03:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The Dremora article is still a stub, so you're more than welcome to expand on it. The article still needs details about Clan Dremora and some game-specific information in the form of screenshots and notes. --Legoless 03:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I made a new sandbox to take up making a full blown Golden Saint article, since I failed to find any indication of one in the making, but I'll sandbox the Dremora page and give that some TLC as well. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Is "Mazken" the name of the Shivering Isles article? No. Is it the name of the entry on the Bestiary page? No. Is it the name used in the Races lists in the Oblivion/Shivering Isles section? No. Let's see how many times the names of this Daedric race are used:
Dark Seducer: 2 games.
Mazken: 1 game.
As far as I am concerned, "Dark Seducer" should be the official name, for the sake of consistency. Same thing for the Golden Saints as opposed to Aureal: More is Lore. Plus, Daedra are not Elves. The Daedric races might call themselves Kyn/Aureals/Mazken, but residents of Tamriel respectively know them as Dremora, Golden Saints, and Dark Seducers. I do believe that Lore articles on this site focus from a primarily Tamrielic perspective. Plus, they are a lot easier to call by the names given to them in Tamriel than their natural Daedric names. What, do you guys just hate the idea of a Race having a two-word name? Bauglir100 11:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
In fairness, how many people have the balls to walk into the gates of Hell just to study the wildlife and people inhabiting them? The way things have always worked, at least so far as I am aware, is that the proper name is the name that they address themselves as. The Orcs are Orcs because that is what they address themselves as, the Dunmer are such because that is what they call themselves, and so on, and so on. The Mazken and Aureal address themselves as such, so that is their name. And, as for the reason they have never had a proper name before was because they have never been seen in their native environment as a peaceful people. Prior to Shivering, they were simply summoned soldiers following orders, such as Staada's warriors in Morrowind or they were just completely rough Daedra out in uninhabited parts of the land that were seldom visited. I look at it this way... Suppose you were out at war, would you say "By the way, I am a <nationality>?" Probably not. So, a name would never have been known unless they were being peaceful. Hence, the new lore on who they are as a people. So, the statement "More is Lore" is not necessarily accurate. Well, that is how I look at it at least. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 16:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring what the proper thing to call them in-universe is, using Lore:Dark Seducer instead of Lore:Mazken for the main article would make it convenient for new visitors, and would make it consistent with the rest of the site, where pretty much every other article that references Dark Seducers calls them "Dark Seducers" first, and "Mazken" second. Unlike you and Legoless, I don't want to use one name more than the other because I think it sounds better, but because it would actually be more consistent with the Wiki itself.
And if we're just going to call the Daedric races by what they call themselves, then why aren't all the Dremora-related articles changed to "the Kyn"? Why are all the Golden Saint-related articles called "Golden Saint", instead of "Aureal"? Because it's more consistent with the Lore!
And since we're getting pretty much nowhere with this overly long, pointless discussion, I'm starting the article for Dark Seducer and Golden Saint myself. You guys can fill in your own information after me. Bauglir100 20:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

() Well, we are trying to get somewhere, but you're bent on believing that your way is the right way. And, for the record, regardless of what the article is called, Lore:Mazken and Lore:Dark_Seducer would both redirect to the same article, the same with Golden Saint and Aureal, so confusion on the issue would be less than zero. And, by the way, the term, "the Kyn" came from a book, so it would have no chance of being the name of the article, because it is not used often, whereas Aureal and Mazken are used in a game, fairly often. Like I said, it is the newest lore on the subject, because it was only in the last game that we encountered them as a peaceful society that could be interacted with. Are you saying that new lore, which, last I checked was used as the most accurate of our lore, has to be completely discarded to make room for outdated lore? By the way, what have you got invested so much in this topic that you won't even consider a possible alternative to your suggestion?
"Unlike you and Legoless, I don't want to use one name more than the other because I think it sounds better, but because it would actually be more consistent with the Wiki itself." And, this statement... We aren't using Aureal and Mazken in our sandbox articles to look pretty... We are trying to be consistent with the site. The point of the site is to document the what in "in-universe" world is, so it is appropriate to use these names, but maybe an administrator and patroller know less than a new editor who almost exclusively edits talk pages rather than actual articles when it comes to what is consistent with the site-wide style? ESQuestion?EmailContribs 21:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We use the name "Dunmer" about as much as the name "Dark Elf", but since Dunmer is the more accurate term the articles are always "Dunmer". Thus, Aureal and Mazken should be used. Also, the lore section is supposed to read like an encyclopedia, so the more scientifically accurate names should always be used. • JATalk 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, if the proper name is "Mazken", then why does every article on the site refer to them as "Dark Seducers"? Their SI article, the Lore:Bestiary page, and the Battlespire:Bestiary page all call them Dark Seducers, so why can't their own article in the Lore section call them that as well? Is this really that hard to do? Bauglir100 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Mazken and Aureal would be used in the Lore space as that is what they are called, but Battlespire and Morowind's articles on them would stay as what they are called in the game for them. As for the SI article, it could have been either way for both of them, since that was when the name was introduced. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 22:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable. But I'm pretty sure that "Mazken" only applies to Sheogorath's Dark Seducers, anyway, no matter what that interview that Legoless found said. It's the Realm of Madness, for crying out loud! Confusing/misleading information and/or unreliable narrators should be expected!
If you're going to use the "Mazken" name, just play things safe, and just use the name when referring to the Dark Seducers native to the Shivering Isles. Especially since the Dark Seducers in [Battlespire] and [Oblivion] look different from each other quite a bit. Bauglir100 23:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

() I was going to write a big long explanantion as to why is should be Golden Saint and Dark Seducer, but then I happened to stumble upon Saints and Seducers, which contains the line: "In fact, the terms "Golden Saint" and "Dark Seducer" are external constructs. While the two groups recognize and respond to these names, they have their own names for their races: The Aureal and the Mazken, respectively." That sums it up for me. elliot (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

While it is definite that the Dark Seducers in the Shivering Isles call themselves Mazken, it should be kept that way in the Lore:Dark Seducer article. Referring to every Dark Seducer in the Planes of Oblivion as "Mazken" without further evidence from an in-universe third party (that isn't associated with the Shivering Isles) that explicitly indicates "Yes. Dark Seducers in other Realms of Oblivion call themselves Mazken, too!" would be like using Vvardenfell as the basis for an article on the entire province of Morrowind, just because The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind was set there, and not on the mainland (barring the Tribunal expansion, obviously). Bauglir100 23:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That's faulty logic. Elliot's reference clearly states that Dark Seducers are called Mazken, which must also include the Dark Seducers from Battlespire who are not affiliated with Sheogorath. Therefore, Mazken applies to the group as a whole. --Legoless 23:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, the Saints and Seducers book was written by a mortal resident of the Shivering Isles, who probably never went to another Realm of Oblivion, let alone encountered a Dark Seducer that wasn't a servant of Sheogorath. Further evidence is still necessary before we can confirm that all Dark Seducers everywhere call themselves "Mazken". Bauglir100 23:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Bauglir, do you have anything to contribute to the conversation? I am sorry, but the last few of your comments have been fairly similar, with no new contributions to the outcome of the conversation. And, Legoless, I have decided to create a Sandbox about the Aureal to complement yours on the Mazken, if you want to take a peek. It still needs to be cited, given images, etc, which I am currently doing, as I type this message. I figured that if you launched yours, it might as well have it's sister article on the Saints. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 23:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That article looks good. Only thing I could think to add would maybe be a note explaining the difference between "Aureals" and "Aureal (pl.)", although I can't quite remember the distinction myself, or even if there is one. Both terms seem to be acceptable. --Legoless 23:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, Aureals and Aureal seem to be used indiscriminately. I am using yours as a base of reference since the Aureal and Mazken are similar, but different, so I plan on citing what I have and maybe adding some information on major events concerning them from SI. But, this section is getting stupid long, so any comments can be directed to the sandbox's talk page. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 00:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny how you accuse me of contributing nothing new, when none of us are really getting anywhere. We should compromise this somehow: We can either find evidence from a non-Shivering Isles source that explicitly states all Dark Seducers in the Planes of Oblivion call themselves Mazken, or just go with my strategy and call the article "Lore:Dark Seducer", but include a section on Sheogorath's Dark Seducers, calling them "Mazken". But really, can we just pick one of these and get this part of the discussion over with? I'm sick of it as much as you are. Bauglir100 00:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
What you're asking for is impossible to provide. The terms weren't around before SI. The fact is that the Dark Seducers in Battlespire are the same Dark Seducers in SI, in a similar fashion to the Khajiit in Arena being the same as the ones in Oblivion despite a different appearance and lore. The lore has since developed past Arena's strictly human-like Khajiit, and Lore:Khajiit has followed suit. If SI says that the race are called Mazken, then they're called Mazken. Naming the article "Lore:Dark Seducer" when it includes "Seducers" and "Daedra Seducers" as well is like calling the "Dremora" article "Lore:Daedra Count". --Legoless 00:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

() By Azura, stop this arguing now. I'm trying to end on a compromise, and you just keep opening up another excuse from the bottom of the barrel to continue this stupid argument, and flood the talk page of this article with wall of text after wall of text. All this over something as petty as a naming convention. If I wanted arguments this long, drawn-out, and pointless, I'd go on a Youtube comments page, thank you very much.

Now let's please just call it "Lore:Dark Seducer", add sections for the different "variations" (Seducers, Daedra Seducers, Mazken, etc.), and let the site itself decide how the article should be made. Bauglir100 02:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You advise us to quit "arguing" but then completely ignore the consensus that was reached and continue arguing. I think you need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. elliot (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is not a compromise to demand that your suggestion goes through. The consensus that I see is to use the blanket terms "Mazken" to cover all the Seducer classes, and then for consistency between the two Aureal will be used. This site works on consensus, and I see only 4 editors for Legoless' suggestion, and just you for using Dark Seducer. Now, if you want the conversation to end, don't follow up this post demanding that we go through with your idea. We have told you time and time again what was going to happen, and you keep following up with demands to use your idea with no arguments. This conversation is officially closed. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 02:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Not yet. There's just one more thing that should be done: We should delete, or at least move, every part of this section past the first two entries, since they are the only ones that really stayed on topic before it went haywire. I'm done kicking this dead horse. Now let's bury it, as it wreaks. Bauglir100 02:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
We can't. This conversation should stay on record, so that in the future it can be looked back at if we ever needed to. ESQuestion?EmailContribs 02:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Then move it to another article. Lore:Dark Seducer or Lore:Mazken, even though they currently re-direct to this article, is a much more reasonable place to put it than here. Or perhaps a different article altogether. I don't want to have to experience visiting this article knowing this embarassment is here. Plus, it's taken up 80% of the talk page, and it's not even on the same topic anymore! I think it should be moved. If anything, we should worry about expanding the Lore:Dremora page. The other two Daedric races can wait. Bauglir100 03:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That isn't how it works. Talk page conversations remain on the talk page. In a couple months, it can be archived, and the page can always get longer. As it is right now. Because we're still talking about this. —SkoomaManiac TalkContribs 12:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Dragonling's are also seen in Skyrim, though the Midas Magic Mod is needed in order to see it. — Unsigned comment by The0tyler (talkcontribs) at 21:47 on 12 April 2012 (GMT)

If it comes from a mod then it doesn't really count, unless they are always there in the original game without mods. RIM 20:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Dark Seducer related to Daedra Seducer?[edit]

In their respective descriptions, these 2 creatures are stated to be related. What is the source for this? --Xyzzy 16:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any direct source, other than the evolution of the series. Daedra Seducers appeared in Daggerfall; daedra called Seducers then appeared in Battlespire. Dark Seducers were a superior type of Seducers in Battlespire, who were then expanded on for Shivering Isles. Apart from near-identical appearance (Daedra Seducers and Battlespire Dark Seducers are both winged females), there's nothing confirming any relation to the modern Mazken. Nevertheless, all the daedric seducer enemies are grouped together and covered in detail on Lore:Mazken. It's impossible to know for sure, but there's no reason to assume that they aren't somehow related (in the same way Fire Daedra and Flame Atronachs are both Elemental Daedra). However, I agree that the bestiary entry for Daedra Seducer is a bit too assuming, as it seems to be confusing them with Seducers. Removing the line about the Dark Seducers might be a good idea. —Legoless 23:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Death Hounds?[edit]

Death Hounds from Dawnguard have not been added yet. When they are should they be mentioned as being vampire dogs? Are they considered vampiric in lore or just undead? — Unsigned comment by (talk) at 19:28 on 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Deer and Dragons[edit]

The entry for "Deer" needs to reflect that they are in Skyrim (As in the description of the deer, not the "Appears in:" section.) The Dragon enty should reflect that a red dragon, Nafaalilargus appeared in Redguard. 02:15, 24 December 2012 (GMT)


Could this page be unlocked so I can fuse the Dremora and Dreugh entries(and other stuff).--Ashendant (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

Pronunciation of "Dreugh"[edit]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but does anyone happen to know the correct pronunciation of "Dreugh"? I've always pronounced it "drech" or "druch", with the ch like that of Scots "loch", but I was wondering what the general consensus is (if indeed there is one). Norowane (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2014 (GMT)

I've always pronounced it soft, as in Drew or Drow, but I've also heard it pronounced as a hard G. Jeancey (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2014 (GMT)
Ysabel Andronicus in-game, as well as a Zenimax dev on the Quakecon livestream, both pronounce at as 'Dreg,' for what it's worth. -- Hargrimm(T) 00:40, 26 January 2014 (GMT)