Template talk:Daedra

Hive Golem

Should Hive Golems be on this Daedra navbox? I know there's a lot of confusing overlap between Daedra-atronachs and golem-atronachs, but I don't think we have much other than a name to go on when it comes to these animated fetcherfly nests. If we really want to include all artificial golems, this would extend the scope of this navbox to include Dwemer Animunculi. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that a robot powered by a Dwarf soul is a type of Daedra. —⁠Legoless (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Knights of Order are confirmed to be a Daedra by Bethesda yet we list them as an other

Apparently there is issues with people seeing the inability to see them as such from what I gathered? But the Legends card does confirm they are a Daedra. They would be in fact a Daedra because they are in fact Jyggalag's creations and have no original thought. They are also summoned using the Obelisks themselves.They are not people, they are not mortals. They are just mindless Knights that follow Jyggalags whims.TheVampKnight (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

They were previously listed as humanoid; I believe they are now listed as other because their unarmored forms aren't known. It's really a similar case to Dro-m'Athra, I'm sure there's other reasons. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that they are still a Daedra they have a humanoid shape either way even armored or not. Dro-M'Athra are a type of Daedric corruption that is a unique thing to Khajiit and their souls. They are distinctly unique and would likely not be a Daedra and fit the other classification. Knights are undeniably and factually a Daedra as going by this card and Jyggalags nature as a Daedric Prince. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Legends:Knight_of_Order.TheVampKnight (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Their status as Daedra is debated. Similar to dro-m'Athra, they are Daedra in the non-Aedric sense of the term—but we have sources that directly contrast them with regular Daedra as something "other" or even as unliving constructs. As such, their categorisation here is correct. Yes, they are humanoid; no, they should not be listed alongside the likes of Dremora and Mazken. —⁠Legoless (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see the sources for this personally.TheVampKnight (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Knight of Order notes would seem to be a good place to start. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Chaotic Creatia

Should Chaotic Creatia not have a place in "Other"? Currently, it's in the Appendices, but I don't think it fits there. We have Daedrons under "Other", and Daedrons are bits chaotic creatia. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know, it would be like putting blood cells in a navigation template for mammals, definitely a part of all of the but not really a "daedra' in of itself. I don't know how sentient chaotic creatia is on its own. If anything, it would be put in a "Related" section for other topics. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we actually have a source linking daedrons to chaotic creatia? Daedron is an older term, coming from Morrowind, and I can't find the source.

Regardless, I think a "Related" section or something similar would be a good idea for these concepts, since neither are Daedra. Both topics fit best under Appendices, where they are currently listed under Magical Phenomena and Metaphysics respectively. Chaotic Creatia and Daedrons might be Daedra-related concepts but they relate to the substance of Oblivion itself; they aren't specific to Daedric beings in particular. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Lego - its also fine to list these topics in both navboxes. We don't need to choose one over the other. --Jimeee (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) I made the change. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)