Lore talk:Mehrunes Dagon

Dagon's plot

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

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. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 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? –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 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

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

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'

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 •T•C•E• 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible Reference

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

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

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 Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 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 Golden^{Break 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 Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 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 Golden^{Break 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

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

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?

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 Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 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)

Summary of Changes

I'm going to summarize the changes I made to the page today because edit summaries have short character limits.

First off: I removed the TOC and the quote under the Mysterium Xarxes section. The quote, the picture and the TOC were crammed together in one section, making the page unsightly. It looked awful on my screen, and I can't imagine how it must have been on screens with smaller resolutions. I have moved the quote from the top of the page down to this section in their stead. The quote at the very top was less egregious in placement, but still didn't look too nice. The first paragraph was sandwiched between two images, and the quote at the top just smashed it down further.

I also removed a few phrases. "... No other Daedric Prince is as openly tied to mortal suffering" is a matter of opinion; one could argue Molag Bal is just as if not more "open" in his proclivity for causing pain. Other changes include the removal of duplicate links, restructuring sentences, and replacing words with ones that fit better. I have yet to touch the text in The Invasion of the Battlespire. As I did with Molag Bal, I've given Mehrunes Dagon the army treatment under the Deadlands section. It could use some work; I'll finish it once I have the time if nobody gets to it before I do. Images have also been distributed more broadly throughout the article to make it more aesthetically pleasing. -MolagBallet (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dagon's Guitar

I contest the recent removal of Dagon's Guitar from this page. The Elder Scrolls Online website explicitly refers to the guitar as "DAGON'S AXE" and "DAGON'S GUITAR" (it is unclear whether Axe and Guitar form parts of a proper noun, but I am capitalising Guitar in this post to emulate title case). These may refer to an item in real life, but UESP has no policy of considering items to be unreal in TES if they are real in our world or vice versa (see: Amulet of Zenithar, [Ring of Namira, Hircine's Ring, Pocket Guide to the Empire, and the Pocket Guide to the Empire Third Edition). In short: the stated grounds (that Dagon's Guitar is part of a giveaway) do not address the fact that the guitar is, in fact, Dagon's Guitar. Barring further discussion, I will restore Dagon's Guitar to the page. — J. J. Fullerton _﴾talk﴿ 04:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Its a promotional message its not Dagon's Guitar, and its actually Calderwood Percussion's guitar they are the ones that made it, as part of Zenimax's team up with the heavy Metal band Trivium. So it and everything about it is promotions towards some heavy metal musical stuff. Mehrunes Dagon is a fictional character not a real life person. So the Guitar never belonged to Dagon, its Calderwood Percussion's ownership. So its Calderwood Percussion's guitar until the sweepstake winner happens and then it would be the sweepstake winners guitar. So Dagon cannot own it because its not of Dagon's actual craftmanship. Now its inspired by the concept of Mehrunes Dagon and the Deadlands. That was the whole point of the Guitars creation was it being inspired by that to, be part of the musical promotion that Zenimax is currently doing. Nothing more then that and the article kind of makes that very clear. Because its a real life object and not a fictional one makes it not lore worthy at all.TheVampKnight (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dagon's Axe being classified as an artifact as Dagon, but I disagree with the guitar being listed as an artifact. It is a promotional item created for marketing purposes that is based on Dagon's axe, to list a guitar is just meme-like, and while it is great for laughs, is not wiki appropriate. If we give the axe its own page, the guitar is best fit for a note. Zebendal (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Denying the existence of Dagon's Axe is silly, since it can be seen in multiple Elder Scrolls games. This promotion simply shows its significance, and therefore, should still be noted.--ErfXploded (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it, this discussion simplifies to the question of whether a promotion on the ESO website counts as lore-worthy or not. And if it gets past that basic criteria, then are the phrases "Axe of Oblivion", "Dagon-themed guitar", "Dagon's Axe", and "Dagon's Guitar"—which are the only phrases anywhere in the promotion that can be used as evidence of in-game ownership—enough to imply that the guitar is something that actually belonged to Dagon in a historical sense? If so, then the documentation belongs in this article. If not, then the guitar would be best off in Merchandise.

Also, for those who aren't familiar with the term, "axe" is common slang for a guitar, and thus may not be intended to refer to an actual weapon but simply a bit of wordplay. Also, while there's no doubt that Dagon wields an axe, since it can be seen in every last picture of him in the article, I could not find anything anywhere that referred to it using the words "Dagon's Axe". The in-game weapon associated with him is, of course, Mehrunes' Razor, which is a dagger. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 07:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"Dagon's Axe" one can argue is a thing in the lore based on all the images of him wielding one, like this, but I can't support using the image of an electric guitar that was used solely for a promotional item. Its clear the guitar design is based on the original axe and that its just a joke/wordplay like Robin mentioned. This is going into Space Core territory. --Jimeee (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

In my view, this should have been an uncontroversial edit. We have previously been perfectly happy to use the elderscrollsonline.com website as a source of lore (see: Loremaster's Archives (every single one), what is currently reference 9 on Lore:Bosmer, and what is currently reference 10 on Lore:Orc). As for the meaning of "Dagon's Axe" and "Dagon's Guitar" (dismissing "Axe of Oblivion" as irrelevant and "Dagon-themed guitar" as inconsequential, as the former has no bearing on ownership (except that it is in some way of Oblivion) and the latter is merely a descriptor of the guitar's appearance): plain English should prevail, and plain English says that "Dagon's Guitar" means that the Axe of Oblivion is the guitar belonging to Mehrunes Dagon. In support of this plain English reading are the Mehrunes Dagon Controller, called the "Mehrunes Dagon Controller" rather than "Mehrunes Dagon's Controller", and the Mehrunes Dagon body pillow, called the "Mehrunes Dagon body pillow" and not "Mehrunes Dagon's Body Pillow". Thus, in my view, the Axe of Oblivion is very clearly Mehrunes Dagon's guitar.

Having seen this discussion referred to on the Community Portal as over whether the guitar is "Merchandise or lore", I'd also like to question that loaded terminology. Merchandise released in the real world has of course previously been cited as lore (for merchandise presented as if in-universe see: Pocket Guide to the Empire, Pocket Guide to the Empire Third Edition, and the ESO companion books Improved Emperor's Guide to the Empire and Kyne's Challenge; and for merchandise with no in-universe trappings, see the Gregory Keyes novels), so there is no "or" question; the guitar is both merchandise and lore. — J. J. Fullerton _﴾talk﴿ 11:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) The wording was intended to be neutral, in fact, since there's little question in my mind that we should document the guitar in some fashion. To me, it's just a question of whether it's here in Lore or over in Merchandise. I deliberately chose that wording, as anything else I could come up with was clearly loaded towards one side or the other. We have a general policy of not documenting things in multiple places, though there are exceptions, of course. Most of Lore space is an exception from a certain point of view, but even here, there are rules to when we do and don't document things. Generally, Lore doesn't duplicate the documentation elsewhere, but rather discusses it in terms of how it fits into the broader Elder Scrolls universe across games. So, if you want to document something here in addition to Merchandise space, you need to justify it on that level. What can we say about Dagon's Guitar? What do we know about where it fits into things? How and when did Dagon use the guitar?

As far as the various books go, and please correct me if I'm wrong, canonicity has either been clearly stated or implied in each case. For the PGEs, I believe they've been confirmed as canon or, if not, canonicity was implied by the fact that they were sold en masse along with certain boxed editions of the game. Similarly, the developers' Q&A/Loremaster's Archives are also intended as official answers to questions. As you yourself pointed out, they haven't done that for everything. So, where do we see confirmation that Dagon's Guitar is canon?

I was asked to comment here as a neutral admin and I believe that's what I'm doing. I'm not taking either side, I'm just asking for more explanation, more details, and I'm sticking to the requirements we've traditionally used for documenting things in Lore space. I'm also looking at this in terms of consensus. So far, what I've seen in support of documenting it in Lore space comes down to two words: "Dagon's Guitar" (which is debatably somewhat supported by the ambiguous "Dagon's Axe"). That's awfully slim as evidence goes and it strikes me that that falls pretty clearly under synthesis...reaching a conclusion not clearly stated in any source. "Dagon's Guitar" is a far cry from "Dagon owned an electric guitar which resembled his axe and he used to play it during the second era before it was destroyed in..." You get the idea. That said, there's absolutely nothing preventing us from documenting it here if more information along those lines is released in the future or if you can come up with more justification for your interpretation. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 12:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, there is no dichotomy. The guitar is both lore and merchandise, and should be documented as merchandise but also as the lore it is. The idea that it can only be documented in one of these places, and that "We have a general policy of not documenting things in multiple places" is absurd, because much of lorespace represents the collation of information from many, many, many sources. Indeed, the entire purpose of lorespace could be said to document information in a second place, for nearly all of it is built on already-documented game information. The creation of this false dichotomy feels spurious at best, for "Lore doesn't duplicate the documentation elsewhere" holds false for nearly all of the game books in it, for example, or the sentences which summarise or regurgitate lines of an NPC's dialogue. Indeed, the suggestion that lorespace's claims should go beyond the sources almost resembles advocacy for Original Research—or perhaps even for Synthesis.

I also feel it necessary to reiterate what I am intending to do: no more than restore what was incorrectly removed. I have sought to say nothing of "How [the guitar] fits into the broader Elder Scrolls universe across games," nor "Where it fits into things," and nor that "Dagon [used] the guitar." Please view the page history, for you will find that I have synthesised nothing; I have remained entirely true to the sources, saying, in effect, only that "Dagon's Guitar" is Dagon's Guitar. "Dagon's Axe" is in no way "ambiguous"; the phrase "WIN DAGON'S AXE" is an extremely clear reference to the item that is the prize for the competition: the guitar. As for "justification" for mine "interpretation", none needs be done. The Elder Scrolls Online website shows readers a popup saying "WIN DAGON'S GUITAR", which takes them to the page which says "WIN DAGON'S AXE" (which I have made clear is unambiguous). To repeat: the plain English meaning of "Dagon's Guitar" is "The Guitar of Dagon". No interpretation is needed, and thus no interpretation needs to be justified. — J. J. Fullerton _﴾talk﴿ 14:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just silly and I feel like discussing this topic further is a bit pointless. I've a hard time justifying this as a good faith argument instead of just stirring up some controversy. This is clearly just some promotional material without anything indicating it as lore, which can be documented at another more appropriate place. We do not, and never did, document everything as canon that's described on the official sites, except when it's clearly indicating lore statements that are noteworthy additions. However, giving you the benefit of doubt, if you'd like to change some policies, then state so instead of poking holes in it per WP:POINT --Ilaro (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

RobinHood70, you claim that lorespace discusses lore in terms of how it fits the universe across games, so have you actually read the Mehrunes Dagon page? I must call attention to the second paragraph of the mythology section, cause I'll be honest, just seems like a bunch of different quotes taken from different sources barely strung into a coherent paragraph that if anything makes me more confused about how he fits in the larger mythology of the universe. And this is a well-written page, it took me a few clicks on the random page to land on a Lore article, Lore:Karstaag for reference, and it is merely a dump of reworded gameplay information that can be found on the relevant quest pages, no word on what we know about how he fits into things, which is probably for the best, given that what is there is what information we know about him.

And also, if we go to the Lore:Artifacts list, the very first artifact listed is quite direct in its description: "Nothing is known of Tohan or the helm's origins." As with many other artifacts listed there, it's a simple description of what the item is and what is known, regardless of how much is know about its associations or even its uses. You seem to be attributing an unexistant standard of documentation to this situation. And that's not even going into the "implied" canonicity of sources which is whole other can of worms that this site has absurd takes on. You seem to have made up your mind beforehand on how the wiki works and ignored how the wiki actually is, and then addressed this whole discussion in bad faith. 191.177.20.114 15:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Fullerton: You've misunderstood my point. I'm saying that you haven't proven that the guitar is Lore in any way, and you need to. Until you do, consensus is against you. I can't see how the simple phrase "Dagon's Guitar" justifies inclusion in Lore space, but if you can prove that there's somehow more to those two words (or the other phrases I mentioned), then maybe it would. Since you yourself have said that most of those phrases aren't relevant, you're basically saying that the phrase "Dagon's Guitar" makes it totally worthy of being in Lore, which nobody else seems to agree with.

IP: As I don't edit heavily in Lore space, I can't claim any tremendous insights, but I believe my statement is what Lore generally aims for. Sometimes, we're constrained by the limited information available in the game, which is why most minor characters don't have Lore pages at all. If you want to argue about who/what should and shouldn't have Lore pages, please do so on the relevant articles; this is not the place for it. As for what the wiki is and how it works, I can only speak from my own experience. Everyone has their own opinions on what it is and how it works, but at no time have any of mine been in bad faith. If you have a problem with the "faith" of my edits, please feel free to send me an e-mail and we can discuss it, but I think that's side-tracking the discussion here, which should remain focussed on the merits of whether Dagon's Guitar belongs on a Lore page. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 16:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the guitar should stay removed. It is very obviously a guitar that is modeled after Dagon's Axe. Further argument in favor of Mehrunes Dagon owning a real double-necked guitar that is being used as promotional material is blatantly facetious. The axe is seen in-game, the guitar is not. The guitar is modeled after the axe, ergo, the guitar is not lore.

In my opinion, the ongoing discussion is silly. As the primary contributor in the merchandise namespace and a large contributor in lore, I say this discussion has prolonged far beyond its deserved lifespan and the guitar should "sguidaddle" from lorespace. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) I am frankly amazed at the amount of discussion this removal has generated. The proposal to include a real world promotional merch item on this page is nonsensical. Furthermore, equating actual lore texts taken from elderscrollsonline.com with a throwaway line about this guitar contest is an untenable interpretation of our referencing guidelines. —⁠Legoless (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Is that therefore something which, for the avoidance of doubt, needs to be amended in Lorespace policy? Something which effectively clarifies that only sources specifically written with worldbuilding in mind are appropriate, while marketing materials are not? As a comparator, when doing interviews, Lawrence Schick was always careful to answer as a character of the world, not a developer, for a very similar reason. --Enodoc (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I avoided commenting cuz I thought it'd be funny to see what kinda shitshow this would turn into and sure enough, it did lmao. I'm fine either way with a guitar, but I agree with Zebendal and more or less Legoless/Jimeee's views on this matter; create an article for the axe alone, and make a note of the merchandise version like we did with Dragonhorn and Lore:Wrathstone and avoid mentioning merch-only info in the body of the article. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

What a good faith, not at all insane suggestion that Fullerton definitely believes in for sure. I don't think we should have the guitar on the page, but like, can we just all take a moment to think about how rad it would be to see Dagon wailing on two electric guitars? Jacksol (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur that would indeed be a rad sight, as for the lore relevancy? I’m inclined not to comment other than to say the lore always prevails. Dcking20 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not oppose a Note on this page stating "As part of their cross-promotion with heavy metal band Trivium, Zenimax Online Studios gave away a twin-necked electric guitar designed by ZOS concept artist Mike May to be Mehrunes Dagon-themed. This guitar was built by Bill Whitney of Calderwood Percussion." This is all Fact, backed up by the Quakecon interview with Mike May held on 2021-08-21.

The part that is wild conjecture is that this guitar is an actual item of Elder Scrolls Lore. Gina Bruno, Elder Scrolls Online Community Manager, states during the aforementioned interview that Mike was asked to create "Something that Mehrunes Dagon himself would probably use if he was into playing guitar" - my emphasis. At no point during this interview is there any reference to the guitar being an actual item from Lore, or modelled after an item in Lore.

Sources: [1] and [2], timestamp 06:02:50 to 06:04:27. baratron (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

While I reject the idea that reading the words "Dagon's Guitar" and interpreting them according to their plain English meaning (as above) is "Wild conjecture", I recognise the clear textual evidence that Baratron has presented which proves that Dagon's Guitar is only his hypothetical guitar. I no longer have any intention of adding Dagon's [Hypothetical] Guitar to lorespace. — J. J. Fullerton _﴾talk﴿ 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) In conjunction with baratron's evidence Tuttle said "It's a guitar themed around Dagon's axe. Dagon would, no doubt, shred the hell out of that guitar is given the opportunity, though.", this confirms that while the axe is very much real the guitar doesn't actually exist in the TES universe, its just based off the axe. I think everything else in this discussion has been settled between all parties and there's nothing else to address. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Martin mantled Akatosh"

The inclusion of MK's statement that "Martin mantled Akatosh" is problematic because according to lore policy, unofficial lore should only be used when "it helps to explain in-game content". Further, it also states that "using solely UOL to support definitive statements of fact should be avoided". Pretty sure that's what's being done here.

Kurt's interview states that "Martin is forced to use the Amulet to take the form of the god Akatosh in order to defeat daedric prince Mehrunes Dagon", and defines this as "Martin's apotheosis". He makes no use of the terms of mantling.

I should point out that while "apotheosis" traditionally means the elevation of someone or something to divinity, the term has also been used in relation to Alessia, and she did not become a god, but rather a saint.

Outside of MK's statement, the term "mantled" has not been used to describe what happened to Martin. In fact, in official sources, the term has only been used in relation to Sheogorath and to the Wilderking, both whose mantlings led to a drastic transformation in the personalty of the mantler. The fact that after the banishment of Dagon Martin himself says that he will "join his father and his father's fathers" clearly shows how he remains as he was. Except, you know... dead. -ColovianHastur (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to amend. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There is obviously disagreement on this, so the discussion should be talkpaged --Jimeee (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

My argument has already been made above. Thing is, I don't believe this isn't a matter where any compromise can be reached, as compromise implies a resolution where both parties are satisfied, and the matter being discussed here is the complete removal of the sentence about Martin mantling Akatosh, with one side arguing it is removed, and the other arguing it stays.

I'm not compromising on my stance. That line needs to go. Also, policy also says that the inclusion of UOL should be discussed on the talk page before its inclusion, something which did not happen beforehand. So either policy is followed or this sets a precedent where policy turns into simple "editing suggestions". -ColovianHastur (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I had no skin in this game because it wasn’t my edit, however I do think between various accounts that explains Martin achieved some type of ascension in which he BECAME Akatosh, the MK source serves as a sort of icing on the cake that tells us what specific form of ascension it was, that is to say, mantling. Here’s a couple post oblivion sources on Martin's sacrifice

"You are the best Septim that's ever ruled. Well, except for that Martin fellow, but he turned into a dragon god, and that's hardly sporting..."—Sheogorath dialogue in Skyrim

"My da even told me the story of Martyn Septim, and the things what happened when the gates to Oblivion opened. Septim turned into the spirit of Akatosh and killed Mehrunes Dagon."—Alduin is Real book in Skyrim

Notice how we have two sources that lay out that Martin **turned into** Akatosh, not that he merely summoned him from the sacrifice ritual and then just poofed, Martin's spirit quite literally became the avatar of Akatosh that we see whip on Dagon. Now combining this with the Kurt source that says Martin achieved apotheosis, I think Mk's source merely serves as the last piece of the puzzle of just what this "turning into Akatosh" apotheosis consisted of. And to touch on what Kurt's definition of apotheosis was in this context, it’s clear it refers to the becoming Akatosh as the quote preceding this one by Kurt in the same article stated "Martin is forced to use the Amulet to take the form of the god Akatosh in order to defeat daedric prince Mehrunes Dagon." Ultimately this quote clearly serves its intended purpose as expanding our understanding of existing material and thus should remain. Given the edit conflict was between me and one other individual, Hastur I see no reason to give any further insight beyond this one response to the issue and will leave it at this and allow others to chime in and hopefully form consensus either way. Because Hastur, as strongly as you or I feel about keeping and or removing the information that’s what will decide if it stays or goes for the time being is user consensus. Dcking20 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with what Dcking said, the scene of Martin turning into Akatosh is in-game, as well as these statements of people in the games claiming Martin turned into the spirit of Akatosh. However, I do feel that this info could be turned into a [nb] note, this way, we could present it as the unreliable narrator theme common in the franchise. It should just be reworded into "some believe Martin turned into the spirit of Akatosh". The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The game identifies the dragon not as Akatosh, but as the "Avatar of Akatosh", a term used by Ocato and an identification which is also used in Legends. An avatar, by definition, is a physical manifestation of a deity, or the spiritual given flesh. Further, Martin's deeds are also described as a "sacrifice".

"I believe that Martin's sacrifice sealed the gates of Oblivion forever." - Jauffre

"This victory is not without cost. We've lost Martin Septim. What an emperor he might have made. His sacrifice was necessary, but it leaves the Empire without an emperor." - Ocato

And indeed, the book "The Oblivion Crisis" says that "Martin Septim chose to make the ultimate sacrifice - he shattered the Amulet of Kings to become the avatar of the god Akatosh and do battle with Mehrunes Dagon."

Not that he became Akatosh, but that he became the avatar of the god Akatosh. These are two different things.

Furthermore, the very concept of "mantling" is not even defined. The term mantling is used in relation to the event between Aranias and the Wilderking, it is mentioned by Haskill in one of the out-of-game interviews, where he says that he is the remnant of a mortal who mantled Sheogorath during a previous Greymarch. However, there are no sources which define it. It is, as it stands, a term without contextual meaning.

And if we go by these two events, these mantlings don't match what happened between Martin and Akatosh. Aranias didn't become an avatar of the Wilderking - she became the Wilderking (or rather, Wilderqueen). Same goes for Haskill's original persona, in that he didn't become an avatar of Sheogorath, he became Sheogorath.

In any event, MK saying that "Martin mantled Akatosh" is, in context, ultimately a meaningless sentence, since mantling doesn't have a definition in the first place. -ColovianHastur (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(←) I don't think the accuracy of the claim is what's important here. I don't think it belongs at all. It being a note added by parentheses supports this imo. Regardless of whether or not Martin mantled Akatosh, the only thing relevant to Dagon is that Martin caused the big gold Akatosh Dragon to appear and make him leave. Mindtrait0r (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ColovianHastur's original edit, although for a slightly different reason. The fact that he transformed into an avatar of Akatosh is undeniable. As Mindtrait0r said, whether he was "mantled" or not is irrelevant on a page about Dagon, and the only thing UOL should be used for on a page about Dagon is for additional information about Dagon. --Enodoc (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I spoke about this briefly on Discord, but mentioning it here. My point is although we don't have an official definition of "Mantling", MK's usage of it is not meaningless. Given he came up with the original idea, it hold weight. If we look at UOL sources, we have a definition:

"The Stormcrown mantled by way of the fourth: the steps of the dead.... walk like them until they must walk like you."

Notice that he says he mantled by way of the fourth (this alludes to the Six Walking Ways). Not that the fourth is the only way to mantle, and not that the fourth is mantling. We know from official sources that Sheogorath and Wilderking "mantled" - and yes their Mantling doesn't align with Stormcrown's method - but it goes back to the Walking Ways. There are different ways to Mantle according to official and UOL sources.

The concept of Mantling is official - the exact definition is not. I compared this to the The Towers - Pre-ESO it was an official concept, but heavily relied on Nu Hatta to support it. Mantling as a concept is in the same boat. Because of MK's explicit wording, I think a mention at least is relevant (not neccesarily on the Dagon page, but in general for the lorespace), even if its an nb note. --Jimeee (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the three above points, just on the stance that this information isn’t super relevant to Dagon and more related to Akatosh, it doesn’t need to be on the page. All that’s needed on here is that the Avatar of Akatosh fought Dagon. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary information for this page. This is Lore:Mehrunes Dagon not Lore:Akatosh or Lore:Martin Septim. This particular detail is just not relevant enough to Mehrunes Dagon to make the cut, especially since it is UOL about something besides the actual subject of the page. It should be removed from this page on that grounds. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)