Online talk:Kwama

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

Larval Form?[edit]

I'm not sure that Scribs or Kwama Scribs can be considered the "larval form" of Kwama, given that we have a previously established form which much more closely fits the classic definition. They may not appear in ESO (yet - no word on whether Vvardenfell will change that), but they are a part of lore, and much more obviously larval. Are there any books anywhere that contradict this and describe Scribs (either form) as the larval form? None of the four sources cited on this page mention the word "larva" at all. The first book actually does mention Foragers, despite their absence from ESO, and given that this book is an ESO original (not found in Morrowind), they should be taken as existing in canon even for this game. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I imagine it just lifted the wording from Morrowind:Scrib. As for sources, the following vampiric dream from Morrowind calls them larvae: "You dream of a sumptuous banquet spread out before you. You feast on a particularly choice cut of roasted meat, and its aroma makes your mouth water. It is only as you cut into the last portion that you see the scrib larvae squirming inside. You cough blood as the larvae begin eating their way out of your stomach." Not sure why we don't have them on the wiki... Obviously it is a little weird that the larval form of kwama doesn't actually look like a larva, but I think it's more a biological stage than an appearance thing; foragers are fully matured despite looking like more a grub than their infantile form. —Legoless (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The Improved Emperor's Guide to Tamriel/Morrowind, "A larva is called a "scrib" and transforms into one of three forms: a Forager, Worker, or Warrior." I think the original wording on this page came from the Morrowind sources, but this is the explicit definition you're looking. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the reliability of the Guide to Tamriel was in question. I.e., the book exists in the ES universe, but is known to contain canonical inaccuracies. Not sure how much we can rely on that. As for the vampire dream - well, first of all it's a dream, which pretty much by definition stretches reliability as a source. But also, note that the term first used is actually "scrib larvae". This is significant as it potentially implies there is a difference between a "scrib larva" and just a "scrib". Admittedly, it's more source than I've got. My only objection is based on real-world insect physiology, and a gut instinct that says the Forager just looks a lot more like a larva than the Scrib. While for example, the Worker just looks like a slightly beefier version of the Scrib, and the Warrior just beefier-still, the Forager definitely looks like a pre-metamorphosal form. But that's real-world biology talk, so maybe not relevant to this universe... — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
A forager is 100% the mature form of a scrib, real world morphology be damned. I don't think there's ever been any suggestion otherwise. The Emperor's Guide to Tamriel is as canonical as it gets and doesn't actually have any major inaccuracies other than a weird mention of corprus (but not the only mention). I don't see any particular reason to discount a mention of scrib larvae (changed to just "larvae" in Oblivion) just because it's in a dream, although the wording does seem to imply an even earlier form of kwama. —Legoless (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
From the Morrowind dialogue: "Scribs are a larval form of the kwama. Crushed scribs produce a nutritious but sour-tasting gelatin with modest magical properties that the natives eat with gusto." --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 03:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


It seems all kwama creatures are currently categorised as a single species under Category:Online-Creatures-Kwama. This is inaccurate; the "species" section is for listing the enemy type, e.g. Bear, Kwama Warrior, Ghost, etc. "Kwama" is a lore term, not a single type of creature, and doesn't belong in the infobox. I'm therefore gonna be switching over the various kwama pages to use the correct morphotype for categorisation purposes. —Legoless (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The only two remaining pages are Kwama Champion and Strifeswarm Brute, which I assume are Kwama Warriors but I've left alone for now pending confirmation. The new categories are Category:Online-Creatures-Scrib, Category:Online-Creatures-Kwama Worker, and Category:Online-Creatures-Kwama Warrior. We may want to switch the scrib category over to "Kwama Scrib" since that seems to be what we're using for the non-passive scrib creatures, but I've left it as-is for now. —Legoless (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The only two working comparisons I can find are chaurus in Skyrim and kwama in Morrowind. Grummite/Pollywog/Balliwogs in Shivering would be valid comparisons but they lack categorization, and the only other morphs I can think of would be dreugh, but both types do not appear in one game. Kwama in Morrowind are all classed as kwama, with sub-categorizations as their "type" (scrib, worker, warrior). Chaurus in Skyrim are categorized with their morphs (chaurus hunters) in one category with no sub-categorization. I thought I was disagreeing with this, because in Skyrim all daedra and dwarven automations are lumped together (via some template trickery), but looking at how, even in Skyrim, we split trolls and frost trolls, sabre cats and snowy sabre cats, and virtually everything in ESO has its own category, it appears I must reluctantly agree that I was wrong to push them all into one category. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 16:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I could see keeping each type in its own category (scrib, worker, warrior, etc.), and then having all of those categories grouped together in a parent category of just "kwama". That way you get the best of both - each individual type is grouped and separated from the other types, but all of them are grouped together under the larger kwama envelope. You could even arrange for each creature page to be placed in both the specific and the general category, so you could see them both grouped and separate. (Like I've been doing for the categories and subcategories of furnishing images - each item is listed both in the larger and the smaller categories, and the smaller categories are all included in the larger category.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Parent category seems like a good idea. Per Silencer's example above, that's what we do with Category:Skyrim-Creatures-Animals-Snowy Sabre Cat, which is under both the Animals and Sabre Cat categories. —Legoless (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)