Lore talk:Mehrunes Dagon

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

Dagon's plot[edit]

This is what the article previously said: "The cult believed in Dagon so deeply that they assassinated the Emperor and three of his heirs to bring about Dagon's coming. The cult did eventually grab the attention of Dagon, who helped them to open Oblivion gates across Cyrodiil."

I believe that the events of Oblivion were in a way a revisiting of Battlespire's theme. Mankar Camoran can claim whatever he wants, but it seems clear that Mehrunes Dagon is running the show here. I also think that what I've got here could be further improved with a better discussion of the relationship between Dagon and the Mythic Dawn... --Edwin Herdman 04:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

strategy guide[edit]

Could the statement sourced to the strategy guide please be a verbatim, cited quote, if it isn't one already?Temple-Zero 12:15, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually, I was debating whether or not it should be kept within the article, as it only explains more than what is needed. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 16:08, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
It sounds too much like speculation atm, so I'll remove it unless it is sourced and quoted.74.65.142.202 11:23, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
It is sourced and quoted; however, the validity of the statement and the need for it are under review. Please don't remove it yet. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 11:26, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
I mean with verbatim quotations and a footnote.74.65.142.202 13:32, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
I just ordered the strategy guide (something I've been meaning to do for a while, completist that I am). Please leave the quote there for now until I can find the proper page and context. –RpehTCE 13:41, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
Or ask Dstebbins for help, he put it in. (I'm automatically logged in, I'm logged out, it changes every visit)Temple-Zero 19:28, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
We will just wait for someone with the guide to input. --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

(outdent) The quote comes from the introduction, on pages 4-5 of the guide. This is the paragraph in full (I think Fair Use applies here!)

Why? Well, in a manner of speaking, because this god-like entity can't do his nasty thing in his own house. Imagine being the Lord of Destruction and forced to live in a realm where you can't destroy anything in a permanent sense. (Every loose Daedric soul slips down the cosmic drain and is eventually recycled.) In comparatively fragile Tamriel, Dagon's basest instincts—his only instincts, we suspect—can get a real workout. Here, people die and do not come back. Even emperors can be removed. Cities can be blasted into ruins. A whole civilization potentially laid waste.

I'm torn on this one. On the "no" side, it's speculative at best and suggesting that Dagon broke the pact between the Tribunal and the Daedra just on a whim is unlikely. On the "yes" side, it's in an official book and does at least provide an explanation. Other thoughts? –RpehTCE 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. It does seem speculative at best, and even if it is an official book, the way it is written seems less than stellar. It seems too fantasy as well. We can do without it (and the quote that was added to the page). --Mr. Oblivion(T-C) 16:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think using a strategy guide for lore is almost a contradiction in terms anyways. Do we know who wrote it? If it was a Prima guide or an equivalent, Bethesda had no hand in it. It is somewhat difficult to speculate on the motives of alien beings. Why does a destroyer need a motive for destroying? If you wonder why Dagon picked Nirn, Nirn is the Arena, neutral ground where opposite forces meet, and the land of his enemies, Akatosh and the Septims. These reasons are well-documented.Temple-Zero 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

In the main page its stated that his name could have been taken from the literary works of H. P. Lovecraft however there happens to be a Semitic god with the same name, it could be that his name is taken from that god or H. P. Lovecraft took the name of that god and in turn the developers copied Lovecraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagon

Mehrune's Razor[edit]

Would it be possible to kill him with the Daedric Banishing enchantment on Mehrune's Razor?

No, as he is in the creature faction. Check this out ~ Dwarfmp 06:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the Origins of the Word 'Dagon'[edit]

I've removed the whole segment on the origins of his name.

"The name Dagon may be a reference to the literary works of H. P. Lovecraft, specifically The Shadow Over Innsmouth. This story is also the inspiration for the Oblivion quest A Shadow Over Hackdirt. Oblivion has several such Lovecraft references, inspirations and homages. The name may also refer to a Philistine god in the bible named "Dagon"."

It's all guesswork and has no place on the lore article about Mehrunes Dagon. If someone has reason to re-add it, please respond here before doing so. Legoless 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Total, utter agreement from me. I hadn't noticed this and would have deleted it instantly if I had. Thanks for doing it. rpeh •TCE 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible Reference[edit]

In the Bible the philistines pray to their god, Dagon who brings destruction to their foes, to destroy Samson, a servant of God. Judges 16 v23-25: The Philistines gathered to celebrate and to offer a great sacrafice to their god Dagon. They said "Our god has handed Samson our enemy over to us." When the people saw him, theyr praised their god, saying, "This man destroyed our country. He killed many of us! But our god handed over our enemy to us to be destroyed. - Any thoughts? --Manic 15:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Elliot (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh wow, can't believe I didn't notice that. Apologies. --Manic 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There should be an etymology section... I find this the most likely source for influence, but you can never be certain. It's relevant to try to understand where they get the names. — Unsigned comment by 66.122.184.109 (talk) at 16:06 on 11 August 2011

On the source of Tamriel[edit]

The account given by Mankar of Tamriel being one of Mehrunes' former realms seems canonical. Remember he can wear the Amulet of Kings, which is not likely an oversight on the part of the creators. Furthermore, this idea that all the Gods are simply warring factions of the same race is hardly uncommon in pagan mythologies. Even Monotheism casts Satan as a creation of the primary deity. Anu and Padomay being the two primary forces in TES Lore, I find Mankar's description of Mehrunes' motivation for invading Tamriel as far more likely than him being bored of things coming back to life. If Akatosh was all powerful, he would not need Martin as a vessel to drive back Mehrunes, etc.. Please remove this speculation that Mehrunes was simply bored of the plane of Oblivion. 66.122.184.109 16:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I didn't see the source was Prima. Tell the bastards at Bethesda that they know better than to let people walk all over their mythology like that! The explanation in the Strategy Guide doesn't even make sense compared to Mankar's explanation. I thought Bethesda took this stuff pretty seriously after playing Fallout Vegas and seeing the complexity of factions they like to put into their games. I hate to say they outdid the Elder Scrolls in moral ambiguity, but, by far, they did in Fallout. Disappointing. The Dark Brotherhood is like some seriously cheesy rip-off of the Morag Tong, but, whatever - they make money either way.

"Origins" section[edit]

I thought I should mention, the "origins" section referencing Dagon as being a "Leaper demon" was removed by me. It was seemingly based off of an attached reference to "The Seven Fights of the Aldudagga" in the Imperial Library website, which was clearly based outside of official lore, but the information was mixed in here. If I was actually wrong to delete this section, let me know.118.93.228.238 08:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the removal was appropriate because we shouldn't have entire sections based on OOG. But I think it would be acceptable to have some modest citation to The Seven Fights of the Aldudagga on a few pages where it's undoubtedly relevant. At least one other page, Daedra, mentions its content. I got a big kick out of it myself. Obviously, there's some built-in inaccuracy to it (I don't think we can credibly cite to the fact that Alduin has ever called Dagon a "stupid little f***er"), but it's a Kirkbride text, and he's basically the reason we allow any OOG material at all. So a cited sentence or two at the bottom or in the notes conveying that Alduin may have been involved with Dagon's transformation into the Daedra we all know and love today would be an agreeable addition to the page, in my opinion. Minor Edits 09:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've re-added the section. It seems to me that we should either accept out-of-game developer texts as references or we shouldn't. Seeing as there's no other information on Dagon's origins, I don't see how the "Kirkbride version" could be so controversial. As for having an entire section dedicated to OOG info: I would personally prefer if the section header was removed. However, the article's current style dictates that a header should split it off from the other information. --Legoless 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem with OOG sources is, that they have no in-game context. We have for example a slightly contradicting story in Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi - "Merrunz" was born by "Fadomai" and destrcutive from the beginning. We know however that this is a Khajiit tale and not necessarily an objective recount of things that happened. The same would be true for the "Leaper Demon King" story if it could be found in the game. This particular OOG source seems to contradict some things while explaining others. That we still could find Lhorkan's Heart on Nirn hints, that current Nirn is the first creation, and not one of several "kalpas". Then again this source lends a bit of credibility to Mankar Camoran's claim, that Tamriel is Dagon's realm (made up of parts stolen by him). And it fits somehow into the concept of Nirn made up of the parts from the twelve worlds of creation in The Annotated Anuad.
In the end I think, we should add a sentence upfront making clear the state of the source somehow. --Alfwyn 12:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel that this section should be stripped from the article completely for the exact reasons Minor Edits stated, it is not only an outside non-canon source, but it also directly contradicts multiple in-game sources and to top it off pretty much makes little to no sense and does no real good to the article in general. Lord Eydvar Talk|Contribs 00:51, 22 March 2013 (GMT)
Over a year later and I still feel the same way about it. A note and a link to TIL, fine, but generally I don't think OOG needs such extensive coverage here, even if it did bear some clearer connections to our other information on Dagon. To add reasons for removal to the pile, no synopsis we could make would provide readers a better understanding than they could get by reading Kirkbride's work themselves. Kirkbride practically illustrated the text's canonical fallibility with his style and word choices. Anyone interested in Dagon's out-of-game lore should be willing to click a link and get it straight from the horse's mouth; we're not doing them any favors here. TIL's a great website, we should be referencing them as a reliable resource rather than feebly trying compete with them on OOG lore coverage. It's their wheelhouse. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 03:46, 22 March 2013 (GMT)
I agree. If no one disagrees within a day or so, I say we remove it entirely. OOG sources aren't just out of game, for the most part, they are also non-canon. This means that if, for any reason, a OOG source contradicts with canon information, it should be removed, as the canon info takes all precedence. Any Kirkblade source from AFTER he was a Bethesda employee has just as much value as if I made something up and just added it to the article. After he left, his writings are just fan-fiction that people tend to take a tad more seriously, but in terms of what we should use, it is not the same as a developer source. Jeancey (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

() I disagree. The content of many articles are based almost entirely on Kirkbride's post-Bethseda works. We cannot pick and choose which of his works we use, it's either none or all. Of course when one of his posts/stories is clearly fiction we do not need to use it, but unless the particular post in question here is proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is fiction then it should remain, otherwise whomsoever chooses to start removing sections based only on his work will be obliged to remove the content of the other articles, which I will happily search out. Kirkbride has a certain authority on the subject that other writers do not have, and some of his post-Bethseda works have been included in later games. Prove that the source is fiction and I will happily support its complete removal. Also, it does look like it could be trimmed down some, but not to the extent suggested above (that's basically just removing it). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 19:41, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

1. "Any OOG should appear low on a single-topic page for which it is substantially relevant and include an OOG disclaimer (an example can be seen on the Lore:Firsthold page) ... OOG should only be used when it helps to explain in-game content." OOG content is supposed to supplement in-game information, so any articles based almost entirely on OOG content are questionable to begin with.
2. Kirkbride's work on Oblivion was only ratified to the extent it appears in-game; what we cannot do is treat an entire OOG work as reliable simply because a game made a reference to an OOG concept or because a quote that's in an OOG work made its way into the game. And we certainly cannot treat one writer's entire array of work the same just because some of his work has been partially incorporated and referenced.
3. You say we can't pick and choose, and then immediately introduce a test by which we can pick and choose. One person's "clear fiction" is another person's probable truth. Personally, I see almost all of Seven Fights as clearly fictitious. I don't think Alduin ever called Dagon a "stupid little ****er", nor do I think Dagon would ever call someone a "grand f*** up"; I don't believe Bethesda will ever incorporate these things into future lore. I think Seven Fights may hold some concepts that future games could build off of, and maybe we'll get some isolated quotes in dialogue or something, but that's all. It's quite different than Seven Fights being reliable material in its current state. If the next game included some version of Fight Six, that would not make Fight One any more reliable. If it quoted some portion from a Fight, that would not make that entire Fight in-game fact. Seven Fights has some potential for readers to learn about concepts that could be incorporated into future games, but it also has great potential to mislead.
4. Your standard is wrong (asking us to prove it's fiction). Asking me to prove it's not TES fact is asking me to disprove a negative. I can't prove this planet has never been visited by intelligent alien life, either. I can prove that Seven Fights is not in-game material, however. It's OOG, so it must be demonstrated why this synopsis helps to explain in-game content and what in-game content supports the veracity of Fight One. What does the paragraph really tell us about in-game content that couldn't be summarized with a note and a link?
5. If Kirkbride's an authority (using that term very loosely), then why get in the way of the authority? I'm arguing that we advertise his work without alienating readers who do not consider it relevant. Look at the page history; there have been many attempts to remove this already, and I imagine it will continue.
6. Notes can be whatever length is required; advocating for a note is not the same as removing it. It's just about following policy (moving OOG lower on the page), and conveying information in the order people want to hear it: what we know comes first, then we move on to what we think we know.
7. The most substantive reason for a note rather than a paragraph is because the more specific we are, the more likely it is that we're incorporating details that Bethesda disapproves of; details which are not meant to be part of the universe they've created and which they may be planning on contradicting (Seven Fights has been contradicted before). Basically, our risk of error increases. By keeping it broad and short, we reduce the risk of our pages perpetuating misconceptions.
8. Here's my first draft of the text for a note: "Some out-of-game content recounts a legend asserting that Mehrunes Dagon's urge to destroy came from an ancient curse placed upon him by Alduin due to his and the Greedy Man's interference with Alduin's affairs". What more is there to say that's relevant to in-game content? Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 21:24, 22 March 2013 (GMT)
I thought this was about Kirkbride's OOG writings, not OOG sources in general. You could have quashed my arguments with a different quote from the same page you quoted from, without providing its relevance btw. From lower down the Lore policies and guidelines page "The UESP need not start documenting every fact mentioned in OOG." Simple as that. Would've saved you time and effort, plus the effort for me to find where you where quoting from to see its relevance to the discussion. One definition of "Supplement" is to give further information, thus to supplement an article, it does not have to agree. My standard is not wrong, there is a clear difference between fiction and non-game sources. A non-game source can be factual, just as in-game sources can be fictional. Kirkbride has written many articles that are "true", to him and his followers at least, but he has also written many fictional stories. And lets not go overboard on the multiple removals, its been removed twice (and one of them was a vandal, so it can't be reasonably counted in the total reversions). Lastly, your draft is still tantamount to a deletion, while merely acknowledging its existence. If I had the will to fight a cause I have no knowledge of I'd propose an alternative, but unless anyone else chimes in, I'm fighting a losing cause. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 22:58, 22 March 2013 (GMT)
I'm not really in favor of using outside sources as facts, even if it's written by someone who was involved in the games. Of course, it gives those infos more legitimacy, and I'm not against including them in the article but only if it's clearly mentioned that they're from an outside source or even in a different section. First, because Bethesda modifies the Lore here and there at each game resulting in conflicting dates and facts, if they decide to bring up their own explanations for something that is documented by someone else, it will just result in some more conflicts. Secondly, because even if the writer himself created parts of the Lore, if it's not recognized by Beth as canon, it's still little more than fan-fiction. In fact, I don't mean to disrespect, but even if he still was working at Beth, what he writes in his free time is irrelevant to the series. UESP's goal is to document The Elder Scrolls, not what people write about it, no matter how important they were. All I ask is someone at Beth saying that such part of his stuff is legit, and such part isn't. We can't just take guesses or put the ones which "make sense" and forget everything else, that would make for a pretty sloppy encyclopedia. Elakyn (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2013 (GMT)
I think that the origins of him being a "leaper demon" has in-game proof. The Mysterium Xarxes was written by Mehrunes Dagon that was given to him by Xarxes who got it from hermaeus Mora. The Mysterium Xarxes itself gives the reader the ability to open"jump or leap" into a different realm provided they had the artifacts. That means that Mehrunes Dagon knew how to leap or jump into any realm he wanted. Also the Oblivion crisis is part of the story of Alduin's return as per Alduin's wall. Mehrunes Dagon was key to the plan of Alduin to eat the world. (Speculation on my part)... There plans(M.D./Alduin) fall one in the same. Alduin needed the Dragonborns to be destroyed and the empire to fall as well as the blades to fall. Mehrunes Dagon did just that or at least is responsible for it. The thought is that the high elves are trying to return to there natural form which is Akatosh and help "unmake the world". The 8 divine gave themselves to the world of Nirn and is no secret that they have no love for nirn or the mortal realm, the high elves are part of Akatosh's lost power and they are trying to return to Akatosh just as the Dwemer tried to return to there divine and to escape the mortal world. Xarxes was a scribe to Akatosh for the elder scrolls who then betrayed Akatosh in favor to Hermaeus Mora(H.M. could have gotten the forbidden knowledge from the betrayal by Xarxes). Akatosh and Alduin may in fact be working against us to unmake the world and regain there lost power in secret from the mortals. This could explain why Mehrunes Dagon is envoled in the plan to eat the wrold. Mehrunes Dagon help (unknown to him at the time) kill the dragonborns and bring down the empire(Talos) and to secure the Deadra from entering into the realm to stop Alduin since its the Deadra that dont wish the mortal realm to be destroyed. Akatosh controls the mortal realm and its history through the elder scrolls and his scrolls tell the tell of how the divines regain there lost power. However Lorkhan's tricks are not over, he loves the mortal realm and is cast to Nirn by Akatosh and they are battling it out. it is known that the player is actually Lorkhan in mortal form (for reference on lorkhan being the player see lore on "Shezarr" as well as "Shezarrine") Now Alduin has nothing to stop him untill the last dragonborn(Lorkhan) shows up out of nowhere. Lorkhan(player) vs. Divines(enemy to mortal realm in secret unknown to mortals). Skyrim25 (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2013 (GMT)Skyrim25

Sun symbol[edit]

Is Oblivion the only game where Dagon's followers or cults are represended as a rising sun? — Unsigned comment by 72.68.30.95 (talk) at 03:47 on 3 June 2012

I think the Mythic Dawn is the only Daedric cult represented by a symbol. -- kertaw48 07:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oblivion Crisis Explanation[edit]

Right now it says this without a citation: "a more plausible explanation is that the ambitious Dagon was not content with Oblivion, where, unlike the mortal world, nothing he killed would truly die." I don't know why this is more plausible, why would Dagon have such a shallow motive? I would believe it more if it at least tied into the Origins section. Dagon's plot seemed pretty elaborate just to get the chance to kill mortals. Can we change this or just remove it? Hope 02:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if his goal was just getting people killed, I think the idea behind it is a bit more elaborate, kinda like suggested here. The current "more plausible explanation" is speculation at best, so I have to agree on the removal. -- kertaw48 09:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Plus, Mankar Camoran gives a pretty good idea about Dagon wanting to reclaim Nirn, which he saw as his "birthright". ThuumofReason 10:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Battlespire info?[edit]

Just wondering why info on him from Battlespire is not on the page? His protonymic (real, original name) is Lehkelogah, and his neonymic (new name) is "Djehkeleho-dehbe-effehezepe". Invoking his names and striking him with a weapon made of Dagon's own essence is what allowed the Battlespire hero to banish him. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 00:01, 8 June 2013 (GMT)

Battlespire has very poor coverage in lore. Definitely needs to be added. —Legoless (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2013 (GMT)