Lore talk:Tsaesci (race)

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive 1: July 2008-March 2014

Sayessie[edit]

Shivering:Grommok's Journal includes this as a phonetic corruption of Tsaesci, giving us the best (and only?) evidence in the games of how the name is supposed to be pronounced. We should probably include one of those pronunciation keys on the page, since I can't count the number of times I've seen people have trouble with how to say Tsaesci. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 02:31, 30 June 2014 (GMT)

Perhaps ESO has a pronunciation of it, or perhaps they all use the term "Akaviri"? Anyway, it does seem to be the only known pronunciation from the devs, even if the source is a dim Orc. Interestingly, it appears "Sayessie" or "Tsay-eh-see" is the "MK endorsed" pronunciation, as shown on the old Fireside Chats interview on TIL:
MK: What am I trying to get at here? Tsaesci, um. Oh, here’s how you pronounce it - the [“Zay-shee”]
LN: Really? I don’t like that.
MK: [laughs] Even I'm saying it wrong. You go.
LN: [“Tsay-eh-see”]
MK: F***, that’s better, that’s more right. Say it again.
Personally I prefer "Say-shee", but that's neither here nor there. :--Jimeee (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2014 (GMT)

Medusa[edit]

So, no known link to the Medusa of Arena? — Unsigned comment by 207.126.220.38 (talk) at 01:28 on 17 February 2015 (GMT)

No. There are no indication that medusas are anything other than a monster type found in the Tamrielic fauna. —MortenOSlash (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
This is purely for lore devil's advocate and not about adding anything to the article itself. But 36 Lessons do describe the Tsaesci as gorgons. Gorgons of course are the hair snakes of a Medusa. TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Language[edit]

"Xhiado Kas" translates as "Flame Maiden" in Tsaesci. link to source Timeoin (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Probably can't be fit into the article, though; or anywhere else considering how little we know of the Tsaesci language. Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Humanoid Issue - Protecting Page[edit]

I protected the page for the next 24 hours to stop the current edit war. Please discuss here before making any more reversions. —Dillonn241 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The Last Year of the First Era series is fictional literature. It's fiction in the same way "I, Claudius" is fiction. It's based on historical events, but it isn't a factual source and it shouldn't be regarded as such. And neither should Mysterious Akavir, whose unknown author claims a lot of things and yet doesn't provide a source, and whose work reads as an example of Tamrielic orientalism.
Furthermore, I fail to see how the Ancestral Akaviri Motif book is considered "false sourcing".
2920 describes the Tsaesci as having serpentine lower bodies (they deliberately use the verb "slithering" when the Potentate and his son move around), not using armour or shields. And yet we have many sources which debunk this.
Proconsul Beloren-Kaie, the direct heir of the last Potentate, is a complete humanoid, as is his lieutenant, Lein-Barduik, and all other Tsaesci ghosts in Hakoshae. They also all use armour. The skeletons in the path to the Pale Pass are clearly human, as well as the ghost of the Tsaesci commander at Pale Pass. Same goes for the the engravings on Alduin's Wall, and the existence of stairs in Dragonguard temples architecture (which would not be very accessible to the Tsaesci if they were indeed half-serpents as 2920 describes). As the proverbial final nail in the coffin, we have the Ancestral Akaviri Motif book, written by an Imperial captain who was at Pale Pass when the Tsaesci surrendered to Reman. It gives detail on the various pieces of armour used by the Tsaesci, which include leg wear, boots, and shields, as well as the various weapons they used.
The Remanada describes Renald as having "painted eyes", and Renald has eyes painted in red dye in ESO. Furthermore, Abnur has this to say about his meeting with Renald:
"His heritage was evident in his eyes and hair. Too evident, I might say. Many Imperials with Akaviri ancestry are only barely indistinguishable from pure Cyrodilic stock."
At this point, trying to claim the Tsaesci are an ambiguous race is just attempting to keep a mysticism about them that is no longer there. - ColovianHastur (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Various edits have been made by the user Colovian Hastur that are bias in language, presumptive, and misconstruing various sources. The immediate red flag right out of the gate is found in this line by Hastur: "Although the racial status and appearance of the Tsaesci is debated, historical and first-person records indicate that the Tsaesci were entirely humanoid in appearance, having the need for apparel such as boots and leg greaves"
This is grossly inaccurate and here’s why. Hastur is making the false assumption that having the need for apparel such as boots and leg greaves means the Tsaesci are explicitly human. Not so! Argonians, Khajiit, and various other beastfolk adorn these type of garments as well. I assume that the confusion lies in Hastur thinking that the Tsaesci when described as snake like beast folk are without feet similar to a Lamia, a common fan theory but not so! Not one source, be it 2920, Mysterious Akavir, whatever, describes Tsaesci as possessing no feet or body type that could accommodate lower body armor. In fact, there are various sources that describe them as Beastfolk but still note that they look similar to the men they consumed. Now that we’ve established that lower body armor doesn’t = human, onto the next error.
"Despite this, fictional literature has identified the Tsaesci as beastfolk, attributing to them traits such as a serpentine lower body and golden scales" Here we have a very easy to identify problem. Hastur has invented the idea that 2920 and Mysterious Akavir are fictional sources. Not so! This is stated absolutely nowhere, 2920 is described as a well researched historical fiction and MA has no source on what type of text it is or any substantiation on its existence beyond the text itself. In short, false claim, can’t go on this lore article. Moving on
"Although immortality is attributed to them in literature, descendants of Tsaesci refugees affirm that longevity is not a trait of the race, and speculate that the longevity of figures such as the Potentates had magical origins."
Here we have seen the introduction of more misleading and bias wording designed to make the reader believe what is objectively true and what is just ramblings in a book, not so! While the Hakoshae character does claim that longevity is not a trait of the akaviri, to say this is "affirmation" of truth is incorrect as we have the competing sources both textually, and just straight up in example. Both Potentates, the sword master world boss from eso, and Renald are all extremely long lived, well past the age of any conventional human sorcerer mind you.
Other small, but equally egregious things such as claiming that the Remanda saying they had "painted eyes" tranlates to "they paint their eyes" like they are putting on eyeliner or something, not so! Renald is depicted in eso and he sports legitimately red eyes. Also you pointed out the crafting motif that showed that Tsaesci have been known to use shields, but did not point to the other Tsaesci motif which while featuring shields, acknowledges they rarely use them, which is an obvious reference to the claims in 2920 while also allowing shields which are used in every single motif. In short, these edits aren’t even accurate or lined with context and basis to begin with, never mind the bias wording. Also to use your own comments above in the talk page
“At this point, trying to claim the Tsaesci are an ambiguous race is just attempting to keep a mysticism about them that is no longer there.”
This makes it quite clear that the issue of them being Humans or Beastfolk is a settled one in your mind. While that is fine to your own personal interpretation, it is not fine to attempt to endorse to the readers. It is far from decided what is the true nature of the Tsaesci and the devs make many attempts to keep this mystery alive by doing things such as fully armoring all legitimate Akaviri to obscure feautures, shapeshifting implications such as the skin shedding dialogue by Renald or the loremaster himself Lawrence Schick saying they are possibly shapeshifters, to not giving an objective answer one way or another. I sadly cannot stand idly by to any edits that state or even so much as imply that the matter is settled one way or another. The article as it stands now merely lists the facts, the conflicting sources, and leaves the reader to decide as it should. Dcking20 (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
>"I assume that the confusion lies is Hastur thinking that the Tsaesci when described as snake like beast folk are without feet similar to a Lamia, a common fan theory but not so! Not one source, be it 2920, Mysterious Akavir, whatever, describes Tsaesci as possessing no feet or body type that could accommodate lower body armor."
Really? Because that's exactly what they are described as in "2920" and in "History of the Fighters Guild".
Savirien-Chorak is said to be "a glistening ivory-yellow eel", who slithers around to move and has a tail. Book Three has the passage "how that Akavir could slither across the grass without making a sound" when referring to Versidue-Shaie.
If they had legs, and by extension, feet, then they wouldn't slither around. They would walk and run.
Meanwhile, History of the Fighters Guild states that the Tsaesci could not wear armour, which is clearly a false statement.
>"In fact, there are various sources that describe them as Beastfolk"
The only sources which describe them as beastfolk are 2920, Mysterious Akavir, and History of the Fighters Guild. Every single other source has them as humans.
Vesidue-Shaie claims in 2920 that the Tsaesci "don't have shields in our culture", which is again another false statement, considering they are mentioned as part of the military gear of the Tsaesci at Pale Pass.
For a "well researched historical fiction", 2920 certainly has a lot of errors about Tsaesci culture. You also completely ignore the fact that we have Tsaesci skeletons and ghosts that are clearly human in appearance.
"Hastur has invented the idea that 2920 and Mysterious Akavir are fictional sources. Not so! This is stated absolutely nowhere, 2920 is described as a well researched historical fiction and MA has no source on what type of text it is or any substantiation on its existence beyond the text itself."
I have not invented anything. Is it a fictional source. Historical or not, it remains fictional. If you want a valid source, you go to historical records and documents, not a book of fiction based on historical events, or a book with unsubstantiated claims that so happens to omitt the name of its author.
If you want a source for beastfolk Tsaesci, then use History of the Fighters Guild. But then you run into the problem of having its statements about the Tsaesci being contradicted by all other non-fictional sources, both literary and visual.
>"Here we have seen the introduction of more misleading and bias wording designed to make the reader believe what is objectively true and what is just ramblings in a book, not so!"
What exactly is misleading or biased about that sentence? Immortality is ineeded attributed to them in literature, and descendants of the Tsaesci do indeed state that the longevity of the Potentates was not natural, and attributed it to magic.
And Renald himself says that he and his fellow Dragonguard sought various means of extending their lives until they could find a true successor to the Ruby Throne, with some, like Grundwulf, becoming vampires, while others, like Renald, used different means.
And considering Sword Master Vhysradue uses several magical abilities, and makes mention of having the vitality of other races flowing through her veins, it's clear that her longevity has magical origins as well.
It's clear that Tsaesci don't have natural long lives, nor are they naturally immortal.
>"Other small, but equally egregious things such as claiming that the Remanda saying they had "painted eyes" tranlates to "they paint their eyes" like they are putting on eyeliner or something, not so! Renald is depicted in eso and he sports legitimately red eyes."
Renald's eyes are brown. They are also clearly painted with dye. Black/grey dye, not red as I mistakenly said. So yes, they are putting on "eyeliner or something".
>The article as it stands now merely lists the facts, the conflicting sources, and leaves the reader to decide as it should.
It doesn't. It tries to present the status of the Tsaesci as ambiguous when it hasn't been for a long time. Even if the intent of the devs was to maintain it as ambiguous, they clearly have failed in that front. The reader should be presented with "what is", not with "what people wished it was". One again, human Tsaesci ghosts that have their facial features visible, alongside equally human skeletons. -ColovianHastur (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it's quite clear from all the sources we have available that Tsaesci are humanoid. Mishaxhi is no longer the only humanoid Tsaesci we see in-game—we now have the residents of Hakoshae Tombs and Sword Master Vhysradue for comparison as well. Relying on 2920 as a source is fine, but calling it historical fiction is not bias as Dcking claims. It is in-universe fiction, and does not reflect what we've seen to date of real Tsaesci. —⁠Legoless (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Hastur sir, every single argument you made was not based in reality. I’m not assuming intentional bad faith of you so let me explain how all of those bullet points are variously conjecture, inaccurate, and don’t belong on a lore page with anti original research policy.
"Really? Because that's exactly what they are described as in "2920" and in "History of the Fighters Guild".
Savirien-Chorak is said to be "a glistening ivory-yellow eel", who slithers around to move and has a tail. Book Three has the passage "how that Akavir could slither across the grass without making a sound" when referring to Versidue-Shaie."
Hastur it’s misleading friend to say not having feet or being able to accommodate lower body armor is exactly what 2920 says, and then link a passage that shows no such thing, it’s also completely inaccurate to do so. The passage you linked could be colorful language, metaphor what have you. We can’t say either way as original research is not permitted we merely have to take what we get.
"You also completely ignore the fact that we have Tsaesci skeletons and ghosts that are clearly human in appearance."
Sigh. Hastur, once again you appear to be conflating bipedal appearances with = objectively race of man. This is simply grossly untrue. Can you say that the transparent ghostly image seen there doesn’t have golden scales as described in 2920? Of course you can’t because the devs obscure the features of every single Tsaesci they’ve depicted! You seem to think that the Tsaesci being reminiscent of a mannish race is proof they are men. Let me tell you why that is not only wrong, but why this all works with the beastfolk path just fine.
"He saw the third pennant, which commanded a legion of inverted gorgons, great snakes whose scales were the faces of men." -36 lessons of Vivec
"The serpent-folk ate all the Men of Akavir a long time ago, but still kind of look like them." -Mysterious Akavir
Here we have two different sources that refer to their snake person nature, even the most famous example in MA that still make it a point to claim they have mannish features! To say them appearing mannish adjacent is proof they are men will always fall flat in the face of these sources. Not to mention the shapeshifting implications.
"The only sources which describe them as beastfolk are 2920, Mysterious Akavir, and History of the Fighters Guild. Every single other source has them as humans."
This….this comment here is rich. Completely, incredibly, egregiously incorrect. I can pull up probably close to a dozen sources or better that describe them variously as serpent folk, snakes, snakemen, snake people etc etc. There is one, yes ONE source that explicitly refers to Tsaesci as humans. That being Anuad. The idea that them being beastfolk is this scarcely substantiated take that is competing with dozens of sources that refer to them as human is not only incorrect, it’s quite the opposite of correct! And since we are talking about the Anuad, let’s go ahead and discuss it’s validity.
The Anuad is referred to in the games variously as The Annotated Anuad, A Children's Anuad, and The Anuad Paraphrased. It’s not only a creation myth, but a simplified creation myth. You’ve been discrediting the sources that refer to them as Beastfolk this whole time, but have been arguing on the behalf of a simplified creation myth! Even despite all this both ideas are presented with equal potential weight on the page currently, more than fair.
"It's clear that Tsaesci don't have natural long lives, nor are they naturally immortal."
This is confirmation bias to an extreme degree! Mysterious Akavir and History of the Fighters Guild claim Tsaesci are as a race immortal. The individual in Hakoshae claim they do not have longevity and offer up magics as a potential solution for the potentates longevity. So we have two competing sources, and yet every Tsaesci lifespan we are aware of in lore far exceeds that of known human sorcerers in the setting. To claim these are all magical extension assumes the Hakoshae individual is right and MA and History of FG are wrong, yet we do not know this and to assume that anything a Hakoshae resident says about the Tsaesci is objective fact when the content makes clear that they are not fully aware of Tsaesci culture, language, and the bloody questline itself deals with them being wrong about their entire founding and history up to that point.
I could touch on all the other points but there’s no need, your core ideals on why this is a settled matter are all unfortunately based on inaccuracies, conjecture, original research and theories all which can’t go on lore articles. Again that it is a settled matter in your personal interpretation is fine, but that interpretation can’t be placed on a lore article for UESP. Unless new, far more objective information comes out that squarely proves them human, and disproves them beastfolk and or beastfolk with the ability to shapeshift into humans, the wording on the wiki will remain ambiguous. Tweaks being made to the page are what they are, but the right wrong language will have to remain off the page. Dcking20 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Dcking, you seem to be ignoring the evidence provided above. There isn't "ONE source" referring to them as human, that's what they look like in-game. Primary evidence has made this a settled matter since 2006. Relying on the fictional 2920 and the clearly metaphorical Mysterious Akavir to counter this doesn't make that any less true. Personally I think the lore article should reflect the reality of the Tsaesci we meet in-game. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Legoless, on the contrary, you seem to be ignoring my sources. For one we’ve already established that bipedal and adoring armor doesn’t =human Elves, and beastfolk do this all the same. Furthermore we’ve established that Tsaesci "looking like that in-game" is not an issue with their beastfolk nature at all as the sources literally speak to this! Let me link them again
"He saw the third pennant, which commanded a legion of inverted gorgons, great snakes whose scales were the faces of men." -36 lessons of Vivec
"The serpent-folk ate all the Men of Akavir a long time ago, but still kind of look like them." -Mysterious Akavir
To have these sources, that explicitly outline their beastfolk nature, while simultaneously saying they remain similar in appearance to man, then taking humanoid appearances from the games and saying that makes them objectively human is a logical fallacy to the highest degree. It’s entirely possible that the transparent ghost model in Oblivion, and the fully armor clad models in eso are obscuring features such as golden scales as mentioned in Mysterious Akavir, while also still looking like the men they consumed, as also mentioned in Mysterious Akavir. Far from a settled matter no matter how many times we say it is. Dcking20 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of making strong "factual" statements about their appearance in this article (such as "Tsaesci are a humanoid race") because this is a topic the devs are deliberately vague about. Its well understood in the community that Tsaesci are a big mystery. Its true the ESO devs have added more confusion to the original depiction and intent of Tsaesci snakemen by making them appear humanoid, but this can be balanced out by their alluded shapeshifting abilities, which is reasonable. --Jimeee (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
See, to me that seems to be the speculation. Blaming asset reuse might've worked with Oblivion's Imperial ghost and humanoid skeleton, but continuing to rely on older sources when presented with ever more evidence to the contrary is the issue. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It’s speculative to claim that it remains a mystery when the devs go out of their way to continue to shroud it in mystery? It’s not an accident that these Tsaesci ghosts in eso and the world boss are fully clad in armor to conceal all features. It’s not an accident that Renald refers to "shedding his skin" and then not divulging if he’s speaking in metaphor or literally. When Schick was pressed on the issue he was as both sides and vague as possible to saying "maybe they aren’t so different to men since they can wear armor" to following with "but maybe they are shapeshifters." The devs will never solve this debate and will keep it both shrouded and alive, while dropping little nuggets for both sides akin to the Mystery of the Dwemer. It is not, and almost certainly will not ever be a settled matter and the wiki would be getting it wrong to use language that implied it was. Dcking20 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
How exactly are my arguments “not based in reality” and “original research”? So, sources that prove my point are original research, unreliable, and metaphorical, while your sources are the only ones that are factual and correct?
That’s not how this works.
All visual evidence has them as humans. Evidence backed by eye-witness accounts and written records.
Mishaxhi is human, as show by his physical appearance. The possibly of him having scales hidden underneath his armour doesn’t make him or any other Tsaesci any less human. Some Maormer also have scales and they are still elves. In a similar manner, some Bosmer also have antlers, and yet that doesn’t make them beastfolk.
If the Tsaesci were biologically immortal, then there would be no reason for them to have tombs, and we would still have living Tsaesci who would identify themselves as such amongst the population of Hakoshae. And if they were naturally long lived, then Renald would not need to seek methods of extending his life.
And yet you keep ignoring that your four sources all present the Tsaesci as things which they are not – serpentine beastfolk that have tails instead of legs, can’t use armour, and don’t use shields. One is fiction, the other is unsourced, while the other is written by a known liar.
In fact, the only non-fictional source for beastfolk Tsaesci is “History of the Fighters Guild”, and even the information presented by it is refuted by the other sources, which show them as humans.
And what about them being called “snake men”, “serpent men”, or “snake folk”? Are Wood Elves made of wood? Or the Snow Elves made of snow? -ColovianHastur (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Visual evidence has them as bipeds yes. This does not make them human any more than it does beastfolk, the look of beastfolk in tes is endlessly variable in scope, keep in mind that an Ohmes (seen in arena) which looks nearly indistinguishable from a human or a wood elf would be considered "beastfolk" they can cast a dozen more depictions of Tsaesci as bipeds and that still won’t prove they are objectively human. Mishaxhi furthermore, is a biped. His ghost model obscures any number of potentially alien features that could be present on him. If the Tsaesci were biologically immortal, they would still need tombs for encountering death from a sword in the back, and potentially other things such as diseases. You keep referring to the "other sources" and I assure you outside of the anuad there are no in universe sources that refer to them as human. Only depictions of bipeds which in this instance are incorrectly getting conflated with being mannish. To remind again, the Tsaesci SHOULD look adjacent to humans even in their beastfolk state per MA and the sermons of Vivec due to consuming them. Dcking20 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not exclusively referring to them being bipeds. I am aware that being bipeds doesn't make them human, as Argonians and Khajiit are also biped races. I'm referring to other features, such as their faces and skeletons. In Mishaxhi's case, his face is visible and it's a human face. And their skeletons are indistinguishable from human skeletons, and have no features that would suggest otherwise, when say, compared to a Khajiit (Cathay) or Argonian skeleton.
>"keep in mind that an Ohmes (seen in arena) which looks nearly indistinguishable from a human or a wood elf"
Fair enough. But my point stands. We have yet to see an example of a Tsaesci that possesses the major traits ascribed to them in "pro-beastfolk" sources. In specific, the serpentine lower body and the non-usage of armour. If what those sources claim isn't true, then how can the rest of their claims be trusted?
>"If the Tsaesci were biologically immortal, they would still need tombs for encountering death from a sword in the back, and potentially other things such as diseases."
True enough. However, that would mean every single Tsaesci was killed prior to the construction of the Tonenaka Shrine, excluding the four that sealed themselves in, leaving only their descendants. Which, quite frankly, doesn't make much sense. The tone of Feina-Darak on her study on the Tonenaka Shrine doesn't suggest any sort of conflict or tragedy that claimed the lives of every single Tsaesci following their resettlement on Hakoshae. It simply implies that they died out from natural causes. Then again, that's how I'm reading it.
>"You keep referring to the "other sources" and I assure you outside of the anuad there are no in universe sources that refer to them as human."
When I speak of sources that present the Tsaesci as a race of humans, I'm not referring exclusively to literary sources, but also to visual ones. I might be applying the term "source" incorrectly, but to me, the Tsaesci skeletons and ghosts in Pale Pass are a source on human Tsaesci.
>"To remind again, the Tsaesci SHOULD look adjacent to humans even in their beastfolk state per MA and the sermons of Vivec due to consuming them."
That falls under the assumption that the Tsaesci are beastfolk and that whatever is stated in MA and the Sermons is remotely true.
And in the possibility that they are shapeshifters, we can't call them either men or beastfolk because we don't know what their true/default/basic form actually looks like. -ColovianHastur (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The fact that the skeletons and the visage of the akaviri ghost are humanoid is once again, not an issue. It was made quite clear in the sources I provided that Tsaesci as beastfolk should in theory look like humans to some degree. The fact that we have never seen evidence of beastfolk qualities such as say scales is a double edged sword because we have also never seen a clear depiction that proves they are clear cut human. It remains an unknown and a debate which is reflected in the article. Other than that I just thought I’d mention that one source we never spoke on was Notes of Racial Phylogeny which groups Tsaesci with a bunch of other beastfolk groups that have scarcely understood biology. Obviously we know both Orcs and Tsaesci have bred with humans so understood or not obviously they can reproduce with other races. In any event, I believe between the sources that claim that beastfolk Tsaesci look similar in some fashion to men, and the shapeshifting implications it’s been well proven that this is not a settled matter and I also encourage people to conduct their own research into the various developer comments such as those from Lawrence Schick, Ted Peterson, and Michael Kirkbride to see how much they dance around both sides and purposefully keep things vague which shows that the devs have never intended to solve this mystery, certainly not by placing concealed humanoid models in the games. In fact the only objective answer from a dev I’ve ever seen is from Michael Kirkbride who said plainly that they were Vampire immortal Snakemen. That is merely his take on it although it’s certainly a worthy one coming from someone who wrote MA, Remanada, and the Sermons which all make reference to them as beastfolk. Still, this is the opinion of one of many devs and I think it’s still absolutely fair to keep language neutral on the wiki to as what exactly their nature is between human and beastfolk. What is absolutely NOT fair nor accurate it to use language to state or imply that us at UESP have solved the mystery and turns out Tsaesci are objectively human. That’s my last of my many two cents. Dcking20 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
If we are maintaining the Tsaesci as ambiguous in the article, then I still feel that it needs to be changed up a bit. At least the introductory part. Would the changes I propose in my sandbox be satisfactory? -ColovianHastur (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a lot better! Much more neutrally worded a few things I would switch would probably be to remove stating so definitively that 2920 claims they have serpentine lower halves. While I agree from reading 2920 it seems clear that the author had a Lamia like depiction in mine, it’s never explicitly said they don’t have feet or legs and things like "slithering" could be used somewhat metaphorically. Instead you could note how 2920 claims them to have tails which have never been seen on the depicted Tsaesci. Also on the line about shields and how them not using them conflicts with the Ancient Akaviri motif, there is a fix of sorts found in the Tsaesci motif where it says
"Wonder at the beauty of our shields, which, though we rarely use them in combat, are still made and decorated to the most exacting standards passed down from one generation of artisans to the next." So while they did seemingly use them at pale pass, it appears on the whole they rarely use them in combat. I will also at some point probably add in the text from the sermons and mysterious Akavir that says even as beastfolk they look like humans to some degree. Other than that I think it looks good. Dcking20 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Got it. I made the following edits to it:
"Sources which identify the Tsaesci as beastfolk attribute to them other physical traits such as tails, and describe them as having the bodies of "inverted gorgons"."
This one uses both 2920 and Sermon 7 of Vivec as sources. This sentence also has a note on the bottom of the article which reads the following: "The Last Year of the First Era uses the verb "to slither" when Versidue-Shiae or Savirien-Chorak move. This, alongside the use of the term "inverted gorgons", implies that instead of legs, the Tsaesci have a lamia-like serpentine lower body."
I also added the following on the matter of shields, which uses the Tsaesci style book as a source:
"However, it should be noted that the Tsaesci use shields mostly as a form of ceremonial and decorative armor, and don't find widespread use in combat."
I took them using shields as ceremonial armour from how the book emphasises the "beauty of our shields", and how they "are still made and decorated to the most exacting standards passed down from one generation of artisans to the next". Not sure if this was the right take to get from this. -ColovianHastur (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me but w*f. The page is just a contradicting mess now. Keeping to older, contradicting lore that has been proofen to be unreliable if not outright false is really problematic - even more so if it's not isolated to its own paragraph, but sprinkled all over the first section.
If anything, make a box solution like on Lore:Nede that presents contradicting theories on generally the same level. But as Legoless said, relying on older sources when presented with ever more evidence to the contrary is problematic.
Imho, the page should just be rolled back to the state it was before August 10th. With the actual new info added these last few days being added onto it.TheynT(talk)
Sorry if this is old, but adding to these, I think it's a great idea to have a "box solution", though I don't think that nowadays we have "more evidence to the contrary", we only find a few Tsaesci that could be, like Renald, descendant and not "pure-blood" tsaesci. And the ghosts and skeletons of Oblivion could be just engine limitations, with snake-like skeletons being too much of a work for just a single quest. We all know that most of the cities of Skyrim and Oblivion aren't really what the lore indicates, so it wouldn't be the first time. With TES:Online I take all with a grain of salt, even though it adds a lot to the lore, it's still a MMO game which also adds things like the "Skeletal Guar" mount or the "Nightmare Stick Horse" mount. It could be, as with Oblivion, just another engine limitation, why would they make a whole new race for Sword Master Vhysradue and a few spirits?
In my humble opinion I think the Tsaesci may be a hybrid race, with snake people and humanoid (Renald-like) people. The Khajiit Kiseravi says "Some say their ancestors were eaten by a race of vampiric serpents. Others say they were merely captured.", so he's clearly talking about 2 different races, all based on the already known and original lore of "serpent people (tsaesci) eat the men of Akaviri", the men, apparently being other tsaesci in the "new" lore.
Alas, mine and Kiseravi and literally all ideas and things about this race are nothing but speculation, I think bittering about this is unnecesary and, as I said at first, we should just point out both in-game theories on the article.--45.182.127.185 18:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)