Lore talk:Multiraciality

Oreyn / Bloodlines

I do think bloodlines like the Oreyn family belong here, but with the possibility of lines only including separate races via second marriages, step-children, or adoptions, I think they should be mentioned in a separate section than the standard race marks. The Septim, Karoodil, and technically the Grey-Mane & Battle-Born clans (Atmoran --> Nord, separate races per 'The Origin of Cyrus!' though I would absolutely understand omitting them and Yokudans) would belong in such a section. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

I'd consider yokudan to redguard and atmoran to nord bloodlines different. Cause that would be true of literally every redguard and every nord. Every Nord comes from Atmorans originally and and every Redguard comes from Yokudans.Tarponpet (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind on this, after reviewing the sources I no longer have any doubt that there were definitely Bosmer-Dunmer pairings within the bloodline. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fibs

• Alchemy, a member of the House of Reveries, once fibbed that those born to a Dragon and a mortal can turn into a creature called a wyvern during a full moon.{{ref|name=Alchemy|[[ON:Alchemy (person)|Alchemy]]'s dialogue in [[ESO:Summerset (Chapter)|ESO: ''Summerset'']]}}

I've removed this one from the page. A lie once told by an actor does not appear to be loreworthy to me. —⁠Legoless (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wyverns do appear to be at least partially recognized outside of Alchemy's tale. In Arena, Jagar Tharn has a spell named Wyvern's Sting. So Alchemy is the only source we have on what a wyvern is, and although the context of her quote makes it obvious that it is a lie, it could still be true that wyverns are at least believed to be the progeny of a mortal and a dragon. I think a mention in the notes or Other section could make sense, provided the relevant counter-source of it being claimed that dragons don't reproduce is also included. Mindtrait0r (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a mention in the notes could work as well, as long as its mentioned that the claim is a lie. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Castles Lore

Rahim al-Elinhir and Davilia Beleth are characters in TES: Castles. They have two children, of which one is Dunmer and one is Redguard. This would be noteworthy on this page for two reasons. One, as an instance of Dunmer-Nord offsoring, and two, as a reference to prove that same-parent siblings can be different races.

Castles is a dubious source, but I think this info belongs here because the characters are present at the start of the game, making them canon characters per current wiki precedent of Lore:Odar. This contrasts with the often brought up Khajiit/Argonian parenting mechanics, as those fall within the umbrella of gameplay and thus warrant disinclusion. Mindtrait0r (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I co-sign this as I agree it falls under what appears to be the general consensus with what’s lore worthy and what’s highly dubious with Castles at the moment in the things that are present at the start of all play throughs such as this and Odar. Dcking20 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the starting characters should all be considered canonical inhabitants of Odar's kingdom/castle and such yes. I agree with their inclusion in this page. Tarponpet (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that that part of Castles does not seem like mechanic and is in fact motivated by (vestigial) story part of this game. The initial sequence of the game with starting characters seems like the part that can be taken for granted.Tyrvarion (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, great to get some bit of lore out of this game. —⁠Legoless (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been added. Mindtrait0r (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Baby Boom Picture

I still disagree that this image belongs here. Castles gameplay mechanics fall under the noncanon side of things, as established above, so using such in-game pairing mechanics to justify the image's inclusion is against consensus. True, there are instances of people changing their gender in TES, but Occam's razor tells us to take the past of least resistance. Should we assume that one of the two women in the picture changed their sex through magical means after conceiving? No, we should say there isn't enough information and leave it at that. The multiraciality article is about biology, so a mere relationship between two people of different race isn't worthy of inclusion. Same goes for the line about the cultural perception of Altmer-Maormer relationships.

Wiki policy is for, when two editors disagree about an inclusion, to revert to status quo, thus avoiding an edit war and awaiting other editors' input. Please don't readd the image until we get some other opinions. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think its a perfect picture for the page. It illustrates a child of being held by parents of different races. While Castles direct gameplay shouldn't be considered canonical. I think its taking a rather narrow view of gender and sexuality with reproduction in a magical setting. Especially considering too my knowledge its not that far of IRL for a child to be conceived containing the DNA of two same-sex parents albeit with additional aid or donations. This is a fully magical setting. Its not a far leap. And regardless of whether lorewise two women could conceive a natural child I feel it fits the theme of the page well. I think the page could afford to cover cultural aspects of how these couplings are seen instead of just the biological, the sex page talks about both aspects, who said this page is JUST for biology. This doesn't even have anything to do with my personal views on such a subject, just what is plausible for the setting.Tarponpet (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that TES: Castles lore in general deserves a talk. When do we consider something gameplay mechanics and something lore? Lifespans in this game are not reflective of Men vs Mer. Elves die just the same amount of time from their age as Men in this game.

The Baby Boom image does deserve to be in the Gender and Sexual Diversity, but with it being in the Multiraciality page, I can see the argument that we are making a variety of implications on the setting if it remains. However, I was going to bring up that magical circumstances does exist in this series, such as Argonians being able to change their gender, and we have things like Alchemy transiting from male to female, so something like this in the setting is definitely possible.

If we are arguing that this should stay in the page, should we also notate that reproduction is not restricted by race and gender? In Castles, Tiber Septim can have a child with Razum-Dar. Think this should be talked about now as this could come up in the future.

I think the best solution is to stick this in the notes section, stating that Castles does not restrict race and gender reproduction, with the baby boom image next to it as an example. That way it remains in the page, as the image file name does imply that it is following the game mechanics of Castles reproductive systems.-Analeah Oaksong (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Its worth noting, all I wanted to do was to use the image. Not to use it as or Castles gameplay as a source to cite or make assumptions about how gender affects reproduction. Simply showcasing that non-tradtional race pairings exist.Tarponpet (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the page is just called Multiraciality, I wouldn't be opposed to widening the sections to include cultural perception of such interracial pairings. In that case, I wouldn't mind the picture, as long as Analeah's edit was restored, adding ambiguity as to whether or not the baby shown belonged to the two. One of the women could easily be a wetnurse imo. That is indeed an assumption but I think it is a bigger assumption than the two women conceiving the baby. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if they didn't conceive it, it is obviously a couple and would still be THEIR baby regardless if they conceived it. Come on, this is some "they were roomates" level ignoring, it couldn't be more obvious especially given the context of the image. "An interacial couple and their child." That phrasing doesnt inhernelty imply they conceived it especially if we expand the context of the page.Tarponpet (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It still omits the possibility that it isn't a couple at all. The image is titled "Baby Boom", no? The orc is clearly meant to be the mother here, that much I won't deny, but I don't see any indication that the human woman is meant to be another mother. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The hearts surrounding the two of them I would have assumed are a very obvious hint... I don't know why you chnaged the goalpost from, "Two women are unlikely to have conceived a child" to "they arent a couple."Tarponpet (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

(←) I never changed a goalpost, I said earlier there's a possibility that she's a wetnurse. "Two women are unlikely to have conceived a child" and "It's possible these two women aren't a couple" aren't mutually exclusive concerns as far as the image caption goes. The hearts surround the orc woman and the child and overlap with the human woman. Plus, one can love a child that isn't theirs, especially if it is a wetnurse like I previously suggested. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"They're just roommates" lmao. Idc about the canonness of Castles, it's irrelevant here. But it's clearly a multiracial couple and saying "n-nooo it's a wetnurse" is genuinely just StraightGuy:TM: coping. Keep the image on the page, it serves to show multiraciality CoolBlast3 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I added initial ambiguity to the description but from the context of the photo being for the baby boom event, and the fact that game mechanics wise people can have babies regardless of race and gender in Castles, I think the photo here is intended to be a same sex couple that had a child. That said, I think the best compromise would be to have a note that the game does not restrict children based on race and gender, with the photo next to the note due to the ambiguity of Castle's canonicity in general.Analeah Oaksong (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I still think including Castles artwork in the body of articles should be fine. But yes there should be some kind of disclaimer or note about how reproduction works in Castles.Tarponpet (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just having a discussion CoolBlast, no need to be so crass and act like my sexuality and gender mean I have some agenda here. Your assumptions here are far more egregious than mine. Consensus is clearly favoring the original text, so that's how it can stay. I have no patriarchal skin in the game unlike what you may assert. Jeez. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The implication of the image is that two women can have an interracial child together. This is true in Castles gameplay, but it's not how procreation works in lore. Doesn't really serve to illustrate this topic as a result, which is a shame. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been moved to a section more about couples. And even so, we don't know that such a thing would be impossible in world, albeit with magical or medical aid of some kind. Especially considering what can be done in our world with how much more advanced the gender related magic in TES is. Regardless even if we don't worry about the logistics of where the child came from, we can simply use the image to illustrate a non traditional family, as it does currently.Tarponpet (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(←) My understanding of the general consensus is that the gameplay of TES: Castles should not be considered as indicative of the lore by default. With that community sentiment in mind, I would limit this image to a notes section or gallery, if not remove it from the page entirely. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 09:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the page is currently being expanded to include multiracial couples, which in a setting rife with racism is a valid thing to cover, and in that case- the image represents it extremely well, regardless of sexual reproduction. In this case, considering the page -already- has such a thing added to it, and will only be developed further, I believe it's fair to keep. CoolBlast3 (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Harkon

Just in relation to this edit, do we need to include every NPC who can be radiantly targeted by New Allegiances and The Gift? All of these NPCs supposedly have ancient Nordic ancestry, most notably including the Argonian Scouts-Many-Marshes. Maybe it would be simpler to have a note or section discussing Harkon's broad group of descendants rather than adding an entry for every single NPC. See Lore talk:Valindor for more context. —⁠Legoless (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why does the article for the Harkon quest only mention three specific NPCs? The Gift is different contextually. Doesn't mention the bloodline aspect in that quest. Tarponpet (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this might be a bit of a misread. The list of spouses on "The Gift"'s page is a list of who can't get it, not who can. The dialogue in that quest makes no mention of needing to be a part of Harkon's bloodline. However, Vingalmo does say that someone needs to be of Harkon's bloodline to recieve his gift in New Allegiances, which would therefore mean every non-exempted spouse should be included, as well as the Last Dragonborn themself. Does that also mean all the Volkihar vampires are related to Harkon? Not sure honestly, but I do think Carine and Valindor should be included here if anyone due to the specific reference to the familial relation in their mission and the limited selection of people for that particular quest. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Rikke

I don't think Rikke should be on the list. She's never mentioned in her dialogue, or anyone elses dialogue as having Imperial ancestry, and at one point in her legends card history it didn't say imperial at all, but just nord. From what it looks like to me her initial listing as an Imperial was simply just an error, and the decision to put her in the Imperial subcategory likely had more to do with deck synergy since the card was originally created with an Imperial oriented deck in mind. I think the intent with the subcategory is not to say that she's a cryo-nord, but that she's a legionnaire so the card can be used with cards meant for imperials. Storm105 (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They had the option to remove Rikke's Imperial race, but they instead opted to add the Nord creature subtype alongside the Imperial race tag. Wouldn't be the only card to do that. Mankar Camoran's is both a Bosmer and an Altmer. I looked at the patch notes that changed her race to both, and it looks like it was intentional. It's possible that it was done for gameplay reasons, though at least in Mankar's case, it would be due to lore reasons thanks to his ambiguous race.Analeah Oaksong (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They did Removed the Imperial race. She was Imperial only, then the imperial part got removed and she was nord only. They they added it back as an Imperial subclass so she would continue to get bonuses for imperial themed decks. With Mankar there is at least some in game mention that he might be Haymon Camoran's son. With Rikke there is nothing in game suggesting she's part imperial in anybody's dialogue. They simply just treat her as a nord who signed on with the Legion like Hadvar. It just seems rather flimsy evidence to me to argue she's a cryo nord based on that. Storm105 (talk)03:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Oaksong. They could have simply just made her Nord. They tweaked other Lore errors just fine. The imperial card class is meant to be the race specifically. -Tarponpet (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In a scenario where it is removed, its worth mentioning in the notes at least.Analeah Oaksong (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Except again they did tweek it to remove the Imperial mention. She was listed as simply Nord for two whole updates and then Imperial was added back later. If it was meant to be race alone the patch notes would have said race. Instead it said "type" as in a category. Her being listed as a cryo nord being confusing is not my point. It's that I personally think that's a very stupid conclusion to make based on the evidence instead of Imperial themed Nord. If she was actually meant to be part imperial there would have been at least one mention somewhere. Storm105 (talk)03:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I researched this further, and I was able to find a comment from Merakon1 from the following Reddit thread. On adding duel races, he said "Coming soon. For the record, we knew she was a Nord, but we tagged her as Imperial because of her affiliation and Imperial deck synergy. But we're now going to tag her as Nord instead." So clearly in this case, Rikke is just an Imperial for gameplay purposes. As you can see from one of the older patches, Merakon is a former game dev from Dire Wolf. I will revert the page and add a note stating that the Imperial race is a gameplay tag, not meant to be lore in this case. Thank you for bringing this up.Analeah Oaksong (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should keep it in the lorepage. 1) We don't know if this is a single dev's opinion or not. 2) If we ignored lore every time a dev said something's for gameplay then we'd have to delete a few things. What matters the most is what's in game. We should restore it to the lorepage but also keep this comment as a note. CoolBlast3 (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Mankar and Lyris are two other examples of individuals with two race typings and both of those have racial implications, I see no reason to assume Rikke's dual race typings don’t also. That dev comment seemingly addresses the original mistake of only giving Rikke an Imperial typing and the choice to change it to Nord. What it does not address however, is the choice to give her the Imperial race typing back along with the Nordic one which was a clear, conscious effort to make multi racial implications imo. Unless we have precedent for any other npcs in Legends having a race typing that is based solely on a 'faction' they belong to then I think we can disregard that. Dcking20 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I dunno. Now that we have the comment it seems the intent is pretty clear. Especially as the replies to the comment were all asking about introducing dual typing for the sake of gameplay.Tarponpet (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Manmer

I have yet to have seen other human x elf pairings referred to as Manmer. All sources point towards early bretons or modern bretons embracing their mixed heritage. The term half elf has been used before for Umaril, but not the term Manmer for non Bretons.Analeah Oaksong (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the Manmer section but put it under bretons exclusively. Analeah Oaksong (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

On a page about multiraciality, it makes no sense to exclude the term "Manmer" when describing Bretons in favour of our artificial "Aldmer × Nede" construction. I have changed the heading to include both. I would argue that Reachmen belong under the same heading as well but it would complicate the current page layout. —⁠Legoless (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)