Lore talk:Padomay

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

More Information From Books[edit]

Would this page benefit from information from books about Sithis or would that be inappropriate? such as Padomay "begat Lorkhan and sent him to destroy the universe," Which is written in the book Lore:Sithis (book). — Unsigned comment by Hope (talkcontribs) at 00:26 on 14 December 2011

As long as the books are canonical (i.e., in-game or written by Bethesda), feel free to add any additional information you can find. I wouldn't just copy and paste entire texts, but the current page doesn't precisely say that Lorkhan was Padomay's child, so information like that would definitely be a good addition to the page. Robin Hoodtalk 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
By most texts Padomay and Sithis seem to be the same entity (the static void before creation that created the daedra and Lorkhan). But I dont think there is a way of knowing for sure so I don't know if I should write that just yet Hope 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


With as little content as this, shouldn't this page be merged with Lore:Sithis? -- kertaw48 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a tricky subject. The best understanding I can muster is that in the beginning, before Time itself, there was Anu. Then (or perhaps simultaneously) Padomay showed up, and together they represent the first "generation" of cosmological forces, stasis and change. Then they each had some sort of mitosis, creating Anuiel and Sithis. This would imply that Sithis and Padomay are separate entities, though for all intents and purposes they may as well be equal, and I know at least one source in the games has treated them as the same thing. People can certainly adopt the belief that they're the same, and that may be correct, but if we merged the pages, I feel like we would in some way be forcing that interpretation on people. So as long there's some room for difference of opinion, I think the safe thing to do is leave them separate. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 01:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
According to The Annotated Anuad Anu and Padomay came together starting Time, but when Anu made the Creations with Nir Padomay destroyed them in jealousy. To prevent him destroying the last remaining Creation, Nirn Anu pulled both of them outside of Time forever so they can't be the same thing. Books like Varieties of Faith in the Empire call Anuiel the soul of Anu, but there is no word on Sithis being the same to Padomay. I believe, that this soul thing either means, that they are born of their essence or that they are their divine avatars, less powerful proxy gods. (probably still more powerful then the nine eight divines though) Anyway, Anu-Anuel and Padomay-Sithis can't be same, because the original ones are stuck outside of the universe, while at least Sithis is proved to be present in Mundus during the games. 01:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Annotated Anuad is only a single, particularly simple rendition of the story of creation, almost seeming meant for children, and I don't feel should be given the same level of validity as something like The Monomyth. Its made absolutely clear in The Monomyth that Padomay and Sithis are indeed the same 'entity', just as Anu and Anuiel are. The Annotated Anuad doesn't even mention Lorkhan, explaining away the whole Lorkhan story as a battle between Anu and Padomay, and the creation of Nirn being Anu's decision, as a way to save all creation. In near every other creation story, Anu and Padomay are portrayed as sort of distant 'parent' figures to the Aedra and Daedra, having very little -direct- influence in creating Nirn itself. Akatosh, the first 'spirit', creates time, giving a perspective or a 'setting' in which other 'spirits', the other Aedra and Daedra, can come into being. They all start creating their own little worlds within time, then Lorkhan comes along to propose they all work together on a single creation. The Aedra agree, the Daedra refuse, and that's the primary separation between the two. All of this is pretty firmly established in the lore, and yet The Annotated Anuad mentions none of it, so I feel it shouldn't be given too much authority. All that said, I think combining these pages is a decent idea, as the Padomay page needs filling out and the Sithis page could use some editing, all the stuff about Mephala being unnecessary/confusing. --Grieves (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Well, lore debate aside, my point is that there is currently not enough content for this to be a standalone article. If no one is willing to expand on it, I suggest we turn it into a redirect and add a section about the relation between Padomay and Sithis on the latter's article. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
I don't think it's made absolutely clear in The Monomyth that Padomay and Sithis are one and the same. Just the opposite, in fact; I think the book is great evidence that they are considered different. The Monomyth's opening language can be interpreted as a concession that they could effectively be considered the same entity, from a mortal perspective, given their mystery, equivalent levels of power, and purported roles in the shaping of the cosmos, but it does not dictate that conclusion. Far from it. The Monomyth goes on to maintain the dichotomy between Sithis and Padomay throughout. It also maintains there's a difference between Anu and Anuiel, in the process reaffirming the Padomay-Sithis dichotomy. It consistently treats Padomay and Sithis as distinct generations of the forces of change, and we should do the same. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 06:49, 13 September 2012 (GMT)
To quote the Monomyth direcly, "All Tamrielic religions begin the same. Man or mer, things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other. These twin forces go by many names: Anu-Padomay, Anuiel-Sithis, Ak-El, Satak-Akel, Is-Is Not. Anuiel is the Everlasting Ineffable Light, Sithis is the Corrupting Inexpressible Action. In the middle is the Gray Maybe ('Nirn' in the Ehlnofex).", and "In any case, from these two beings spring the et'Ada, or Original Spirits.". The language seems quite entirely clear. The only way to perceive them as separate entities from the content of The Monomyth is to take each of the separate stories within as being true independent of one another, as opposed to each being different versions or 'takes' on the same story, which is the entire point of the book. Not to be argumentative, but I don't see any evidence of this 'generational separation' of Sithis/Padomay you mention in the Lore itself, and you've yet to offer any to support your opinion. If there's an actual basis in lore for this separation, I'd enjoy reading it... but all the actual in-game Lore I've come across suggests, implies, or directly states that Anu/Padomay or Anuiel/Sihis are the two contradictory forces of creation, and have always been. I've seen nothing to suggest Padomay gave birth too/transformed into/died and passed the mantle to Sithis. The Annotated Anuad doesn't support this claim in any respect either. It simply suggests Sithis/Padomay suffered a defeat and was banished, which, even if taken literally, doesn't contradict the notion of Padomay/Sithis being different names for the same 'force'. Unless a basis for your theory can be found in the lore, I don't see why the Padomay/Sithis pages shouldn't be combined. If there -is- a basis for your theory in the lore, it would be great if you could detail it so it can be used to flesh out the Padomay page, and make this 'dichotomy', if there is one, clear. --Grieves (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (GMT)
As you just quoted, things begin with Anu and his Other. Where there is Anu, there is his Other, Padomay. The Altmeri myth 'Heart of the World' speaks of both Anu and Anuiel as separate entities. They were basically the same, as Anuiel represented the soul of Anu, but were still distinct from each other. Though the story does not explicitly mention Padomay, Anu's Other is sure to exist when he does. Sithis is described there as the counter-force to Anuiel, not the counter-force to Anu. I'm not taking this story as being true independent of the others, I'm just saying it bears an implication that the other stories overlook. Like every other creation story in TES, it highlights something in the creation myth that the other stories ignore. In this case, it highlights the fact that Anu (and, ergo, Padomay) were not parents to the Original Spirits, but instead were grandparents, as Anuiel and Sithis represented a distinct, intermediate generation. Again, I'm not declaring this is "the truth", it's merely one legitimate interpretation, and not one we should effectively disavow by merging the pages.
Also, I think there's more to be said on Padomay than the page currently does, so I don't think lack of content is a good reason to merge the pages, either. If we were going to go that route, it would dictate a couple other mergers, such as the pages for Anu and Anuiel. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 18:13, 13 September 2012 (GMT)
Heart of the World doesn't present Anu/Padomay Anuiel/Sithis as equal and opposing forces, though... quite the opposite in fact. Heart of the World is an Elvish interpretation, and they view Anu as the perfect 'everything' that creation, or 'Mundus', prevents them from being one with. Religiously speaking, they -resent- creation, and view everything involved with it, including Sithis, as lesser and/or evil. Anu is the perfection they seek/feel cut off from, Anuiel isn't a separate entity at all but the soul or 'consciousness' of Anu, and Sithis is just a -creation- of Anuiel's, an experiment that goes badly, and leads to the cursed Mundus and all those bothersome humans. These differences are examples of Elvish (or Altmeri) pride, assigning Sithis the role of an unfortunate mistake an example of their resentment of him/it. Padomay isn't by any means stated, implied, or hinted as existing alongside Anu in Heart of the World, Anu is represented as independent until Sithis is made. The Myth of Aurbis, as presented by the Psijiic's, who are also Altmeri but not so bound to the popular religious views among them and take a far more 'scientific' position, offers a far more pointed and concise rendition of the very same story, only specifically unbound by the biases of Altmeri culture. These cultural biases Heart of the World exhibits are just that, and it never states nor implies any sort of transformation of Padomay into Sithis as you suggest it does. It states Anu is everything, and Anuiel is the soul of everything... and though that's an interesting distinction indeed, it has no bearing on Padomay/Sithis, as its directly stated in Heart of the World that Sithis is NOT Anuiel's equal, but its creation... and the vast majority of other 'creation' stories, and the introduction to The Monomyth, directly contradict this assertion. Thus your assertion that "Though the story does not explicitly mention Padomay, Anu's Other is sure to exist when he does." is flawed, in that you're taking something stated in the introduction of The Monomyth, and assuming that statement has any bearing on the Altmeri version of the creation myth. I still see no basis in the lore for any stated or implied separation between Sithis and Padomay. By all the content I've read, it seems rather clear they're both different names for the same primordial force of chaos. That all said, I think I'm enjoying this conversation too much.--Grieves (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2012 (GMT)
That's a legitimate interpretation, it's just not the only one. As you've said, each creation story is basically the same story; each just has it's own slight variations and quirks. Simply because Heart of the World doesn't mention a Padomaic figure (omitting Sithis for the moment) doesn't dictate they don't acknowledge such an entity. You're placing great weight on Anu's nickname, Anu the Everything, and still making a load of inferences about the Altmeri view of the heavens. Just as they acknowledge "Anu the Everything", they could just as easily acknowledge "Padomay the Nothing", an anthropomorphism of the emptiness that Anu is not thought to embody. Such a figure may not have been mentioned in Heart of the World simply for lack of relevance. Every other story regarding Anu almost invariably mentions "his Other". It's reasonable to assume some variation of "his Other" is also existent in the Altmeri view, even if they don't particularly care about him.
Since our goal is to provide information in an unbiased format, I think it's in the wiki's interest to keep the pages separate. It's not like we're short on space; there's really no compelling reason to merge the pages. We don't have a substantial amount of information on Shor, either, and he's thought to be the Nordic version of Lorkhan, but we don't have his page redirecting to Lorkhan's page. Why? Because it's not unreasonable for people to believe that the two bear some distinction from each other. A distinction between Sithis and Padomay is similarly not unreasonable. Such a distinction may be the minority view, but it's our responsibility to protect the facts from being boxed in by the tyranny of the majority. A simple note on each page that Padomay and Sithis are suspected to be one and the same will suffice, and it doesn't run the risk of unduly influencing the reader. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 20:19, 16 September 2012 (GMT)
Shor doesn't have his own individual lore page though, and is simply listed as one of the many God-figures in the Lore:Gods section. Its listing there has more content in it than this page on Padomay. That seems a decent reason to me to include Padomay in the Lore:Gods section, but to get rid of this tiny individual page on him/it, especially given all the direct evidence in Lore implies Padomay and Sithis to be the same figures. --Grieves (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2012 (GMT)

() My point was that Shor's page doesn't redirect to Lorkhan's page, it directs the reader to information focused on Shor. This page should be transcluded to the Gods multi-topic articles anyways (I don't know why it's not there already), but dumping this text onto the multi-topic page wouldn't really accomplish anything; it would just force us to put a references section on the multi-topic page. And it's not like this page would disappear, it would just be turned into a redirect to the multi-topic page. There's really no point in doing that. And like I've been saying, I think this page can be expanded a bit; it's not comprehensive at the moment. The scarcity of the information here is reason to improve the page, not merge it.

The direct evidence implies is that there's little to distinguish Padomay from Sithis, not that they're one and the same. The evidence doesn't necessarily say that they are the same figures; it can be construed to mean that, to make things easier to understand for theological laymen in the TES world (to whom most if not all of the texts we know of are addressed), they could be treated as the same. They are mutually reasonable interpretations. Like I said before, there's little to distinguish Anuiel from Anu; one is just the soul of the other. The opening of the Monomyth suggests that they are practically interchangeable labels. But they are distinct entities in the lore. By your logic, we should merge their pages, as well. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 02:38, 17 September 2012 (GMT)

To just throw this out there, how many sub-articles are like this. Kyne, Auriel, or even Talos. We don't need a merge because it will throw a lot of things out of wack.--Br3admax (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2012 (GMT)
My point remains they are directly stated in the In-Game lore as being different names for the same thing. The same cannot be said for a distinction between them, which is pure supposition based on things left unsaid. Shor doesn't have a page. He has a single small portion of the list of all God-like figures, and the very first statement in that portion is that he's Lorkhan by another name, including a link to the Lorkhan page. The stories of Lorkhan and Shor differ from one another tremendously, but that doesn't imply they aren't the same figure, just as differences between portrayals of Sithis and Padomay don't make that implication. Whats being suggested, and that I agree with, is that the Padomay lore page currently up is too sparse and stubby to warrant being there, and the effort to expand it would only be re-stating whats already on the Sithis lore page. So why not model the Sithis/Padomay deal after the Lorkhan/Shor deal, giving Padomay its own section in the Lore:Gods page using the minimal content on this page, and keeping the independent Sithis page for the more bulky info. As it stands, this independent page serves little purpose, and is ugly-small. Unless you've enough actual game-based info to expand the Padomay page in a way that doesn't state what the Sithis page already has, I don't see the point in leaving a tiny little article like this with its own full page. --Grieves (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (GMT)
Don't worry, I'm working on it. It'll have a lot more meat soon and hopefully that will put this matter to rest, as lack of content was the stated reason for this proposal. And there's something you must understand: these are all what Kirkbride and his cult of lore fanatics would call "pseudo-imagos". When it comes right down to it, they're all basically interconnected reflections of the same, overarching thing. Anu=Padomay=Anuiel=Auriel=Akatosh=Lorkhan=Sithis=Shor=Talos=Shezarr=EVERY thing in the TES world. Really, the only things separating them are the labels and what we have to say about each. Minor EditsThreatsEvidence 05:10, 17 September 2012 (GMT)
Yup, the article is fine now. Also I'm enjoying this little lore discussion that I've sparked. I don't see that as often as I'd like, here on UESP. Nice work. -- Kertaw48 (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2012 (GMT)

Merge 2: Revenge of the Sithis[edit]

I’m bringing this topic back from the dead in the wake of the Sithis page revamp. While it was ‘settled’ in 2012 by adding more info, really all that got added was vague information that could apply to both Sithis or Padomay. Additionally, with Fadomai and Satakal info, keeping the two pages separate complicates where their information should go. While yeah, other gods like Lorkhan and Shor have their own pages, there’s a big difference in this case. Shor and Lorkhan are wildly different gods in their respective myths, while Padomay and Sithis are only ever used as different names for the same diety. The ‘Void’ is described as both ‘the Void of Padomay’ and ‘The Void of Sithis’, they are both referred to as the primal force of chaos, and perhaps most importantly, separating information on the two leaves the story for the two incomplete. “The Light and the Dark”, for example, would technically belong on neither page if we were to consider each interpretation of Sithis separate, and as it never names its deities, it can’t really be documented anywhere like the others. Additionally, most information we have when it comes to Sithis and Padomay comes from the Monomyth, which exists to show how each story involving Sithis is effectively a retelling with different names and scenarios. Separating these stories into different pages takes them out of that context completely.Jacksol (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2020 (GMT)

I agree that they are essences of the same thing, but those essences are treated differently in different cultures just like Shor, Shezarr and Lorkhan. Satakal already has its own page due to it being a completely different interpretation. Aside from The Monomyth, which exists specifically to point out how everything is a reflection of the same duality, nothing directly equates Padomay to Sithis, as each one has their own nuances that I think are enough to keep them separate. The Monomyth also directly equates Anu to Anuiel initially, but there are sufficient anecdotes elsewhere to keep those separate because there is a specific statement that relates one to the other later in the book. In terms of the duality, Padomay is only ever paired with Anu, and Sithis is only ever paired with Anuiel, and The Monomyth says that Anuiel is the soul of Anu. There is no official source that says Sithis is the soul of Padomay, but if we pair the duality that is a logical conclusion, and is backed up by one of Vehk's Teachings (UOL) [1].
In terms of the specific content, there are four three entries under Origin and Creation on the Sithis page currently which I think would more logically belong on the Padomay page - the Khajiiti creation story mentions Fadomai and Ahnurr, which have long been considered localisations of Padomay and Anu, rather than Sithis and Anuiel (although I would be happy for both to have their own pages); similarly, Satak-Akel is directly attributed to be "A fusion of the concepts of Anu and Padomay" (Varieties of Faith), not Anuiel and Sithis. The Argonian creation story again focuses on the duality, like the Redguard story, but doesn't actually mention a direct relation to either of the other dualities. The serpent symbolism however is directly similar to Satakal.
In summary therefore, I would not agree with merging, as there are sufficient differences in how they are presented in existing lore that would conflate them too much if they were merged, in the same way that there are sufficient differences to keep Anu and Anuiel separate. However, if they are merged, then we should also merge Anu and Anuiel for the same reason. --Enodoc (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2020 (GMT)
Fadomai should get their own page instead of being forced onto the Padomay mage if we were to do that. They are wildly more different to Padomay than Sithis is to Padomay, and a similarish name doesn't mean they don't get their own page, as Kyne shows and Lorkhaj should show. And while that one refers to Satakal as a fusion of Anu and Padomay, the Monomyth refers to them as a version of Anuiel-Sithis. "Anuiel is also perceived of as Order, opposed to the Sithis-Chaos. Perhaps it is easier for mortals to envision change than perfect stasis, for often Anuiel is relegated to the mythic background of Sithis' fancies. In Yokudan folk-tales, which are among the most vivid in the world, Satak is only referred to a handful of times, as "the Hum"; he is a force so prevalent as to be not really there at all."
There are no clear differences in any canonical texts, the only time they are ever referred to with any clear differences is a single UoL text that does not agree with any myths in universe. And while Anu and Anuiel have sufficient differences, I do think we should move the 'Anu' texts from the Monomyth to an Anu-iel page and make a separate page for Anu the Everything, which is found in Altmeri texts and others, but that's a whole other thing. Anuiel is also, again, only ever the soul of Anu in ALTMERI texts, and Sithis is explicitly NOT the soul of Padomay in that story, as Padomay does not exist in it.
Lets also be real for a minute, its not as if there aren't just as many gods that don't have their own page (the vast majority of gods just redirect to the Lore:Gods page, and there are several that still redirect to divines). You're saying there are clear cultural differences and distinctions between the two, so what are they? What does Padomay have that Sithis doesn't, or visa versa?
Finally, again, ignoring the fact that these are all explicitly retellings of the same story with the same two gods takes them completely out of context. It's far better to have a page about Sithis/Padomay, and then go into the different cultural depictions of this story. Jacksol (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2020 (GMT)
There are a few issue at play here. First, if we want to reference Vehk's Teachings as UOL, that's alright but it shouldn't be the basis for where page-lines are drawn. It should go 'down the page' in further explanation. Also in regards to Vehk's Teachings, it is Anu and Padhome that form the Aurbis. Then, they give rise to their souls, Auriel and Sithis. Getting 'Sithis is the soul of Padomay' from that already requires equating different named entities. It also says Auriel is the soul of Anu, which is another interpretation from the ones presented in game. If we intend to document that Sithis comes from Padhome, we need to also document a version where Auriel comes from Anu with no Anuiel step. (I would personally choose to ignore the UOL when it seems not to fit with existing sources)
Second, the "There are actually two things called 'Anu'" issue. Monomyth is pointing out that, in each myth, there are two opposite forces from which existence, the Aurbis, forms: IS and IS NOT, forming Gray Maybe. We've already mentioned how the multiple pairs mentioned at the beginning are said to be equated, but looking at the actual myths.
  • Altmeri - Anu is everything, he forms his soul Anuiel. Anuiel forms all the limitations needed to reflect on himself, Sithis. From Anuiel (IS) and Sithis (IS NOT) interacting comes the Aurbis (Gray Maybe).
  • Yokudan - Satak is existence and nothing else can be, then Akel the hunger causes things to change. Thus the interaction of Satak (IS) and Akel (IS NOT) form the 'real world' of Satakal (Gray Maybe).
  • Psijic - Anu (IS) and Padomay (IS NOT) interaction forms the Gray Center, the Aurbis (Gray Maybe).
  • Anuad - Anu (IS) and Padomay (IS NOT) interaction creates Nir (Gray Maybe).
  • Khajiit - Ahnurr and Fadomai wed and have many children, leading to the rest of existence. (This one is not mentioned in Monomyth. As Enodoc said, though, Ahnurr being Anu (IS) and Fadomai being Padomay (IS NOT) fit both as names and as their roles in the story.)
I think this shows clearly that the Anu of Altmeri myth, and the Anu mentioned in Psijic and Anuad myths, are not referring to the same force or concept. So to Enodoc's above point, I would support moving a portion of the Anu page to the Anuiel page instead, but not all of it.
Third, and separate from the above two issues, is the broader conversation of what determines when pages should be split. It's probably going to end up being subjective, but what are the most objective criteria we can provide?
  • Sheggorath and Sheogorath have distinct mythology and deeds assigned to them, but we're confident they are the same people, and they have been given the same page.
  • Mara of the Skyrim pantheon has unique qualities compared to Mara of the Cyrodiilic Nine Divines, but we have them share a page.
  • Lorkhaj and Lorkhan are in the same boat, very unique stories and qualities assigned to them, but sharing a page.
  • Kyne and Kynareth, pretty similar and in-universe confidence they are different views of the same being, but separate pages.
  • Sithis and Padomay, very different names, very similar stories and express conflation of the two, but separate pages.
So, what should be our standard? Should every god name get a separate page? Should gods be combined into single pages when there is in-universe support and confidence that they are the same? Should it only apply to the more 'absent' divines, rather than the Daedra? I think this is the key issue here. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2020 (GMT)
Just gonna add one thing to your point real quick, since there are a few Sithis stories that should be included in the list for posterity.
Dunmeri/DB: Sithis (IS NOT) and the demon Anuiel (IS) come into existence and their constant fight creates the universe (Grey Maybe).
The Light and the Dark: The Light/the Bird(IS) and the Dark/the Serpent(IS NOT) choose the Aurbis as their battleground, and that fight creates everything (Grey Maybe).
Bird/Serpent symbolism 100% alludes to Anuiel and Sithis, imo. If we were to keep them separate, there's nothing that links Padomay to serpents or visa versa.Jacksol (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2020 (GMT)

() Looking at the variety of different sources both pages use, I would say a merge is not warranted. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 18:48, 4 March 2020 (GMT)

Do you mean you read the different sources and arrived at this conclusion? Or that there are some items in the references that are unique to each page? --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2020 (GMT)
That is a hard disagree tbh. The citations may have unique texts, but that's only because of the fact they're needlessly separated right now. Annotated Anuad, for example, was on the Sithis page until yesterday, when I removed it to make this page. Clan Mother is repeating the Fadomai story and citations 6 and 7 are about the Adversary, neither of which are specific to Padomay or Sithis. The Light and the Dark is seemingly more about Sithis than Padomay, it just is only found on this page because nobody added it to Sithis' page yet. Citation 1 is just an inference about Padhome being Padomay instead of Sithis because similar name, and Citation 8 is just about an interesting use of the word Padhome, which we are only inferring is about Padomay (despite Padomay not being used in Dunmeri beliefs!). Really, the only citation that would be exclusive to this page if we were to do a full split would be 'the Annotated Anuad'. Jacksol (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2020 (GMT)
As I said above, I'd be happy for Fadomai to have a separate page, and I'd be happy for Ahnurr to have a separate page as well. In terms of what Padomay has that Sithis doesn't, Padomay has multiple references to the creation myths, the Grey Maybe, the duality, and is always partnered with Anu "in the beginning" if a culture recognises both Stasis and Change. If a culture does not recognise both Stasis and Change existing in the beginning, like Altmer and Dunmer, then the duality is shifted to Anuiel and Sithis instead, and that is the only point at which Sithis and Padomay directly coincide. This is itself a cultural difference between Padomay and Sithis, because it comes from cultures that do not recognise Change co-existing with Stasis in the beginning. In terms of what Sithis has that Padomay doesn't, it's mainly the ongoing relevance in contemporary culture as an entity that exists and is worshipped, however that may come about. Padomay meanwhile usually disappears into the Void along with Anu at the end of every creation story, and is never heard from again.
In summary, Padomay only ever exists with Anu before creation ("in the beginning"), if at all, and always disappears after creation. Sithis only ever exists from the start of creation onwards (at the earliest), and is still directly relevant today. --Enodoc (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (GMT)
That's just incorrect. Truth in Sequence has Padomay and Anu both created by Anu at the start of creation and literally retells the exact same story as the Altmeri one but switches the names, while Sithis (the book) has Sithis existing before creation and credits him with CREATING the universe. Padomay and Sithis BOTH go to the Void at the end of the story, and the void is referred to as both the 'Void of Padomay' and the 'Void of Sithis' in various locations. These distinctions between Padomay and Sithis are false and only come from taking ONE story (Annotated Anuad) as the only source for Padomay.
Quick addendum: The Dunmer also DO recognize stasis/Anu as existing at the start, they just don't believe in naming it. They link Sithis directly to 'the Nothing', aka Anu, instead of Anuiel, who comes way later on.-- Jacksol (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2020 (GMT)
Truth in Sequence labels Anu and Padomay as the Source, it doesn't credit Anu with the creation of Padomay. Yes it mentions that Anu breaks itself for wisdom, which parallels Anu creating Anuiel in other stories, but then it goes on to say that Padomay doesn't exist, and is nothing (IS NOT). Nowhere does it infer that the "nothing" only exists after Anu breaks itself (nor does it directly state that the "nothing" exists before Anu breaks itself either, because the point of TiS is to not define the "nothing").
Sithis the book states that Sithis coming into existence is the start of creation (not before creation), before which is only Stasis. In other stories, both Stasis and Change exist before creation, the interplay between them being the start of creation. I think I have missed the source that sends Sithis to the Void at the end of the story. The "Void of Padomay" only exists in The Monomyth, so I will refute your reprisal of the Annotated Annuad with one for The Monomyth as the only source which states Sithis and Padomay are the same thing. --Enodoc (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2020 (GMT)
There's still no source that EVER differentiates them. And Truth in Sequence clearly says Anu came first and sundered itself to create it's own limitations and study itself, a clear allusion to creating Sithis to study itself. In both Altmeri and this story, Sithis doesn't actually exist. He's Nothing, just the name given to the limitations/nothing that allows something to exist.
Saying 'the Monomyth is the only source that ever differenciates them' ignores the fact that A. The Monomyth is FIVE different perspectives on it, that quote comes from the Psijic's, and B. ignores that every other story that comes after mimics the Monomyth in terms of setup. Also, I have a big issue with saying 'Anu/Padomay always comes before Creation' when Padomay only does that in a SINGLE story. That's not a defining feature of Padomay or Anu. That feels like a huge stretch trying to differentiate the two. Saying 'Sithis always comes after Creation and Padomay always comes before' just isn't true. Even if we're including Fadomai, nothing places any of it before the creation of the Aurbis, especially since that story includes the creation of Nirn within it.
Finally, I feel like we're arguing semantics rn and ignoring the main points for merging that were brought up, which really haven't actually been addressed.
1. There is only 1 citation on the Padomay page that really adds any useful information specific to Padomay.
2. The claim 'we should separate all gods by name regardless' has not been followed for many other gods already, and is even happening on this page.
3. Taking all the creation myths out of context and leaving it outside of the pattern established in the monomyth doesn't help anyone who's interested in learning about TES and makes it harder for people to understand.
4. There is no evidence anywhere of Padomay and Sithis being distinct entities with any clear differences, the only inference comes from slightly different wording in ONE creation story, and ignores the fact that Padomay and Sithis are being used interchangably in other texts.
5. There is no clear reason to keep the two pages unmerged when the merged page wouldn't cause any confusion and would help clarify difference between Padomay and Sithis stories.
6. A single UoL text that goes against every story from the games should not be the reason we separate two pages that just become more confusing and empty when separated. --Jacksol (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2020 (GMT)
Agreed that we've gone too far into semantics.
1. There are also a number of sources, like Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi and Children of the Root, that do not add useful information specific to Sithis or Padomay. Therefore that requires an interpretation on where that info belongs.
2. This is true. But I would rather do that than merge them.
3. That is also true, and why I would advocate for also merging Anu and Anuiel if we merge Padomay and Sithis. "Anu the Everything" is not a significantly different concept for that to remain separate either.
4. Lack of evidence does not refute a potential fact. Only one source directly says they're the same, while all others do not mention them both in the same text. But maybe that is enough.
5. Merging Anu and Anuiel would also help clarify differences between them.
6. Agreed. UOL cannot be the only reason for a separate page.
In the end, I think this comes down to interpretation of the source material, and our interpretations are different. That is why we brought the discussion here, to get a consensus with input from other users to determine the outcome of the merge proposal. --Enodoc (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2020 (GMT)

() This sounds like we're getting to the third point I made, which is where I think the root of the issue lies. Should the page separation barrier be differing names? For sake of argument, say there are two different tales that are different takes on Lorkhan. So, on the Lorkhan page, you have a description of Lorkhan A and Lorkhan B (probably Altmer and Dunmer, if this really exists). But you can't put a third section, Lorkhan C - Lorkhaj, because the name changed. So it gets a separate page.

Now, you can links at the top of the page saying "also known as Lorkhaj, Shezarr, Shor, Sheor", and link those to other pages. But then, you may well have pages that only have a single source. "Here's a short page on Sheor, and the line in Varieties of Faith that mentions him". At that point, it seems like we aren't collating information. Rather, we are adding one extra step before finding the relevant source texts.

I know the Daedra aren't exactly comparable, but would the Sheogorath page be better if all Sheggorath information was moved to a separate page? I think a comprehensive look at the subject is more useful, and would contend that is true in these gods sections too.

So, I think paragraph 1 is core. Two or three very different interpretations that share a name get the same page, but 2 interpretations that are very similar get split because they don't share a name. Does that seem odd? --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2020 (GMT)

I think that the Daedra example is a much more applicable one in this case, as Aedra are very hard in general to deal with. Merrunz should absolutely go on the Mehrunes page despite it being a different interpretation, as it's still Mehrunes, just in a different context. He may have actions attributed to him that he did or didn't do, but unlike the Aedra, this doesn't make him a separate deity from what we can tell.
This seems like it's getting a little off topic, though, so I'm gonna try to steer it back to Padomay/Sithis. Personally, I think the answer should lie with two questions: 'Are the names effectively interchangeable' and 'will they lose any vital context for the god if the pages are split?'. In the case of Lorkhaj, no to both, as Lorkhaj is a fully defined diety with a mythos separate, albeit similar, from Lorkhan. For Padomay and Sithis, I would say they are used interchangeably, but lets pretend for a moment they aren't. Even then, separating all the different versions into individual pages takes them out of the context of the Monomyth and also really weakens the information we have available on each of these deities. The Adversary, Fadomai, Padomay, and Akel would all barely have 1 or 2 sources for their pages, and would be at most a paragraph long. It would be way harder for people to have an understanding of Padomay/Sithis as a result of splitting it up into 3 or 4 pages. -- Jacksol (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (GMT)
I believe that when it comes to deities, different cultures have different stories and creation myths. Differences in cultural beliefs should be noted within ONE deities pages and the different names per culture also within that page.Zebendal (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2020 (GMT)
So id like to throw my two cents in because I think this is one of those things where if the wrong decision is made the integrity of the wiki takes a slight hit, considering these are some of the biggest concepts/deities in the lore. So while it is very true that we have a solitary source that outright conflates Padomay and Sithis (and Anuiel and Anu for that matter) I think context matters in how 100 percent we can take that. In the later Altmeri myth of the text, we see Anuiel and Sithis be put a peg below Anu despite the earlier conflation. Now it becomes a matter of some original research/theorizing to satisfy either argument. On one hand you can argue since Padomay isn’t mentioned alongside Anu here that he isn’t in this mythos and “Anu the everything” is some type of “peg above” on the other hand you can argue that the absence of a MENTION of Padomay doesn’t necessarily mean an absence of Padomay from said mythos. Either way it’s undeniable that the Monomyth instantly breaks its rules that it establishes in the opening line later in the Altmeri text and we have to do the assumptions to reach conclusions because of it. I certainly do NOT think it’s in good faith to claim that the only reading is that Anu the everything is some higher peg and that Anuiel and Sithis are fitting the Anu/Padomay role. (The book says Anu and his equal are always the beginning so technically the fact that Sithis and Anuiel come later should say enough but that’s just my opinion.) Beyond this I would point to the 36 lessons of Vivec and the book “Sithis” two dunmer texts on the matter and point out that Sithis/Sithisit and Padhome/Padomay are both present in both of these texts seemingly in a different context. You could argue that this is the dunmer using both names in a single text but for specific religious texts and not educational religious texts like say varieties of faith this is very uncommon so in my personal opinion is the less likely. Also in the song of Pelinal Pelinal Padomay and Sithis are used in slightly different context. Now let’s say that Padomay and Sithis are without a shadow of a doubt the same being, (which imo is not a conclusion to be reached based on the full picture) I would still be very much against a merge for the simple fact that Sithis is often used in VERY different contexts than anything Padomay has ever been tied to. Sithis is stated by atleast three sources to be a god/god of death and is of course the patron spirit of the dark brotherhood. This couldn’t be any more removed from Padomay who is never once stated to be a God or patron being of any organization. Padomay and his equivalents are only ever tied to creation myths where he/she/it opposes its opposite Anu. To do a merge and simply conflate a primordial force like Padomay with the God/patron spirit side of Sithis would be a disservice to both “characters”. Enodoc made some great points in that with Padomay he/she is there for the beginning of creation and then peaces our for all of eternity. Sithis is from the beginning (or a little after) and onwards and unlike Padomay is an active force that is worshiped and revered in multiple cultures. Always with the name Sithis. If it’s Padomay or otherwise it’s an origin story and then gone. Basically this is quite a larger gray area than merging say Shor and Lorkhaj, or Akatosh and Auriel and I don’t even think those type of pages have any business being merged, much less these two. P.S. I understand this hasn’t been commented on in months but stumbled upon it as I went to make edits on the Padomay page earlier today so I wanted to put my thoughts in before any kind of decision was made.Dcking20 June 20, 2020
With respect, man, I feel like the arguments above already address most of these. I'll run through these rq, though.
- "Either way it’s undeniable that the Monomyth instantly breaks its rules that it establishes in the opening line later in the Altmeri text and we have to do the assumptions to reach conclusions because of it."
No, it doesn't. It lists each name as synonymous with one another, has the Psijics use the name Padomay, and has the Altmeri Mythos use the name Sithis.
- "Beyond this I would point to the 36 lessons of Vivec and the book “Sithis” two dunmer texts on the matter and point out that Sithis/Sithisit and Padhome/Padomay are both present in both of these texts seemingly in a different context."
There is barely context for the 'Padhome' references in the 36 lessons, all it ever refers to is the Daedra being the offspring of Padhome in some way. Sithis, meanwhile, has Sithis fulfilling Padomay's role of being the Nothing that existed prior to the creation of the Aurbis. Additionally, saying it would be weird for the sermons to use alternate names like this ignores that the Padhome text comes from the same sermon that uses the name 'Boet-Hi-Ah', an alternative spelling of Boethiah that is literally never used anywhere or ever pronounced this way. Additionally, Sithis the book explicitly states that Sithis not only predates Anui-El, but was the creator of Anui-El.
- "Also in the song of Pelinal Pelinal Padomay and Sithis are used in slightly different context."
the context here is "And it is said that he emerged into the world like a Padomaic, that is, borne by Sithis and all the forces of change therein.", which is literally just saying "Like a daedra, which is to be born from Sithis", aka a role the Anuad gives to Padomay. Thats not a different context at all, they are still being used as synonyms here.
"Padomay and his equivalents are only ever tied to creation myths where he/she/it opposes its opposite Anu. To do a merge and simply conflate a primordial force like Padomay with the God/patron spirit side of Sithis would be a disservice to both “characters”."
This is just compeltely ignoring the fact that Sithis is always tied to the exact same creation myths, and also ignoring that Fadomai DOES have active worshippers in Khajiiti religions. To try and split them into 'god' and 'creation myth' character just doesn't work when both names are used in both roles.
Finally, the biggest issue with keeping them separate is that if we choose to split the pages wholly, then the Padomay page just becomes completely redundant. I made this sandbox to show my main point for this, that if we remove all the the information that doesn't apply to Padomay themself, but a different version, this is the page we're left with: https://en.uesp.net/wiki/User:Jacksol/sandbox1
(Also, you don't need to apologize, this desparately needed new life) Jacksol (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
What I mean when I say that it breaks its rules is that it says “All Tamrielic religions begin the same. Man or mer, things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other. These twin forces go by many names: Anu-Padomay, Anuiel-Sithis,.......” Anuiel and Sithis are put in the exact same category as Anu and Padomay (hence this discussion) but later in the Altmeri mythos we get Anu as a peg above Anuiel (his soul) and Sithis who come later. This means no matter what side of the fence you fall on you are admitting there’s a shift in the rules the book lays out in the opening text. If you believe that “Anu the everything” is some kind of higher being and that Anuiel and Sithis are actually fitting the Anu-Padomay role here then you have to account for the rule of “things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other.” Being broken. If Anu the everything doesn’t have an opposite in this myth, then that rule has now been broken. Furthermore you have now muddied the fact that Anu and Anuiel are synonyms when they clearly aren’t in this myth. That’s where the other theory comes in that Anuiel=the soul of Anu must mean that naturally Sithis=the Soul of Padomay. Either way there’s some speculation going on here and we can’t say for certain which interpretation if either are factual. The other points were kind of just us having a disagreement in opinion/interpretation so I feel like I don’t need to reiterate anything there. But anyways yeah. That’s what I meant by the Monomyth makes this opening statement, but this opening statement later gets muddied and contradicted to the point where both sides have come up with some original research/speculation. I’m not saying mines for sure right, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s set in stone enough for us to make a decision like a merge based on the lack of consensus. And of course even if we did all end up agreeing Padomay=Sithis 1/1 I have my other issues that I laid out. Dcking20 June 20, 2020
There is only contradiction if you misinterpret the sentence, "things begin with the dualism of Anu and His Other." In the Yokudan myth, the story begins with just Satak, then Akel comes up later on to complete the dualism. In the Altmeri myth, Anu comes first, then Anuiel arises as the first part of the dualism, then Sithis appears to complete the dualism. In Anuad, the Void is first, then Anu and Padomay dualism appears seemingly simultaneously. In Sithis (the book), nothing leads to Sithis, and then that leads to Anui-el, completing the dualism. In Children of the Root, Atak is first, and later Kota appears to complete the dualism. If "things begin with the dualism" means that the two parts of the dualism must exist simultaneously and nothing can come before it, then the author of the Monomyth is stupid, not realizing that two of the stories quoted in his own summary contradict it.
The correct reading is "in every myth, the universe is birthed from a dualism." Then he points out that the dualism has many names in the different beliefs. In the Anuad and the Psijic myths, the duality that births the universe is named Anu-Padomay. In the Altmeri myth, the dualism that births the universe is called Anuiel-Sithis. Whatever the Anu is in Altmeri myth, it is not the same thing or role as the Anu of the Psijic or Anuad myths. There is no contradiction, only confusion due to a name being used for two different concepts. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
An interesting reading but by no means the only reading. And that still doesn’t change the fact that a contradiction does still arise even if you think that. The book in the opening text outright conflates Anu and Anuiel along with Padomay And Sithis (again why were having this discussion) but then later puts Anu a peg above both Anuiel and Sithis in the later Altmeri text. That your reasoning for this is that Anu in the Altmeri mythos is some higher being that isn’t actually the Anu the opening text is speaking to is fine. But it’s also just as fine that some of us have some alternative reasoning. Again either way you slice it you have to come up with some O.R. to state either theory. But with the clear lack of consensus either way, I think a merge isn’t justified just on the conflating them both side. And even if we do totally conflate them I don’t think a merge is in order for the same reasons we don’t merge say Alkosh and Auriel into one page. I think as it stands both the Sithis and Padomay page have a satisfactory compromise in that they list each other as alternative names/titles. At this point this is actually seemingly a greater ask on your and jacks end that all deity pages without a ton of individual information should all be consolidated and merged and tbh I think that belongs probably in community portal rather than this talk page. Unless there’s a specific want for Padomay and Sithis specifically. Dcking20 June 21, 2020
As I said at the beginning, I think the result here should be the basis for an all or nothing decision, so if that needs to go to Community Portal, now is probably the time to do that. --Enodoc (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Regardless of the decision, it's clear that right now, the pages aren't being split fully anyway. This should probably be brought over there for a community-wide decision. -- Jacksol (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)