Lore talk:Shezarrine

People or Faction?

I just want to note for future reference that my placement of this page under "People" was basically an arbitrary decision due to a lack of information, and could be subject to change if and when we know more. It could have easily gone under Factions, but I felt it would be slightly less presumptuous to treat it as a persona, like we did with the Gray Fox, instead of an association of people, which would have implied that they are actually more than one person. Which they could be, I don't know. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with treating it as a persona. It's less a group of people, and more a line of reincarnations (Shezarr + Nerevarine = Shezarrine). —Legoless 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Player may be Shezarrine

I'm definitely not the first person to think of this, but I hold the belief that all the player characters in the Elder Scrolls series are Shezarrine. If one person plays through all the Elder Scrolls games, then one might conceivably argue that all the main characters (Hero of Kvatch, Dragonborn, etc) are just reincarnations of each other and perhaps Lorkhan. — Unsigned comment by 66.203.20.175 (talk) at 16:33 on 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but there aren't really enough references to make such a claim on this page. The concept of player characters is covered at Lore:Hero instead. —Legoless (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the thematic similarity between the two articles justifies a link, maybe in the notes section. 90.32.102.45 21:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Needs more sources.

"The confusion caused by many incarnations of the Shezarrine is responsible for many identity mix-ups throughout history. Some examples include the many names of Pelinal Whitestrake, who were likely separate Shezarrines thought to be a single being, which would explain the variation in the many legends of his deeds; Tiber Septim, who is officially considered to be one man by the Empire but may have been at least two separate people; and the several figures involved in the Imperial use of the Numidium, including the mysterious Underking." doesn't have a single source and it just conjecture/theory without them which doesn't belong on the wiki.Buaf (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

'Developer'

Why is a former developer referred to as a 'developer' in the notes section here? As the games progress and the lore is expanded on, the prominence of one random employee seems less relevant to the actual substance of the lore officially speaking and may be at some point just conjecture until explicitly confirmed or evidently contradicted. 81.100.92.221 10:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'developer' in question is probably the most important person in developing Shezarrine lore, and the language should reflect his status at the time of the comments. The developer has not entirely left Bethesda either, he is frequently used to write new in-game books, some of which expand on certain lore topics, resulting in him having a continued significant effect on the development of lore. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Existence of the Page

Something interesting came up on Discord some time ago and I thought it was a good idea to move it to this talk page. Even if nothing comes from it, at least it will make sure for future users that this is noticed and discussed. The text below was written by a user named Serithi:

Unless I'm mistaken (and I've done a decent double-checking to make sure), this page should probably not exist, or should otherwise be heavily refactored and renamed. The one single time the term "Shezarrine" is ever used, officially or unofficially, is in The Song of Pelinal v5, referring to Pelinal specifically.

It is a solid truth that Morihaus was the son of Kyne, but whether or not Pelinal was indeed the Shezarrine is best left unsaid (for once Plontinu, who favored the short sword, said it, and that night he was smothered by moths).

That's the only time the term's ever used, and examining the citations on the page, it's actually a complete presupposition that it's a term used for avatars of Lorkhan/Shor/Shezarr in any official capacity that it's then working off of. The page assumes "Shezarrines" is a thing and goes from there. Avatars of Lorkhan are ostensibly a thing, of course. But we're the ones calling them Shezarrines, not the lore. Likewise the claims it makes about the nature of Shezarrines are extremely loaded, since it's saying stuff that actually only Pelinal alone did. A study group of 1 isn't very representative of things beyond that single 1.

--Ilaro (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2019 (GMT)

After Serithi brought it up, my search came up with the same results. I did not even find UOL on it in TIL. As such, this article likely falls firmly into OR. I think it may be right to remove this page. "Shezarrine" can redirect to Pelinal's page, where the title being potentially tied to him can be mentioned. Then, a note (or similar) could be added that Shezarrine is constructed similarly to Nerevarine, potentially indicating a reincarnation of Shezarr. This could link to Lorkhan's page, and the UOL from MK about Lorkhan avatars could be addressed there. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2019 (GMT)

Naturally as a partial author of the article's initial draft I am opposed to the proposed deletion. It's a shame we seemingly cannot document more speculatory topics in lorespace anymore, and I would hope that pages like Lore:The Towers do not follow suit if outright deletion is the option chosen here. I do want to point out per UESPWiki:Lore that original research is not outright banned from lorespace, but obviously that's dependent on consensus and it seems to me like consensus has shifted on this topic. In my opinion there is plenty of proof that Lorkhanic avatars are a thing, and "Shezarrine" is the only name we have ever been given that could possibly describe such a being, thus the article title.

I am hesitant to propose Deletion Review for this article. However, it definitely seems like this page would be better off renamed or rewritten than simply {{prod}}ded. If consensus remains to delete this page from lorespace, I propose that it instead be Userfied. —Legoless (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2019 (GMT)

Every page has to be evaluated individually and the fear about other pages should not play a role in how this one is treated. If they have clear references that support their existence, then that should be enough for them to have an article. While I didn't have a good look at the OL sources on the Lore:The Towers page, it actually is backed-up strongly by at least one UOL text (and I also know they are mentioned at least once in the novels and we have the tower staff in ESO). That can't even be said in the case for this page and thus comparing them with each other is not on equal footing.

Speculation is not something that should happen on the wiki (with maybe at most some speculatory notes) and thus I am not sure why this is such a controversial proposal. It's in the style guide since 2007 and Dave mentioned several times that we are not here to create lore, only to document it. That it was allowed in some capacity in the past is a problem that has to be fixed, not a quality of the wiki. Anyway, the prod was mostly to draw attention to this talk page. I like this page and wish we could at least keep some parts of it documented somewhere, but this will not make me biased on how we should treat the use of citations, presuppositions, and speculations. I see that other solutions could be preferred by either a rename, a redirect, or as you said to userfy. Still, I don't think the page can be kept in the state that it is now, unless we can find some arguments that removes the concerns laid out in the first post. --Ilaro (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2019 (GMT)

In light of this, I have rewritten the page to try to address both sides. I tried to balance a few different goals:

1. Get rid of the extrapolations that inspired the request in the first place. Remove unverifiable claims. I did remove the 'See Also: Hero' bit as unsupportable.
2. Cut down on details or citations that were not directly relevant. Part of the article was a history on Lorkhan, which I trimmed to only the relevant parts about 'wandering creation'. Removed two sources that only existed to support "Lorkhan is a divisive figure".
3. Preserve much of the information. Without slashing it down to "Pelinal was called the Shezarrine"! I tried to keep the spirit of the article, being avatars of Lorkhan, and express it in a neutral way.

I'm sure some of the language could be cleaned up, but I believe this improves the article and addresses the concerns expressed here. I would appreciate feedback here if there are any major objections, before an outright revert. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2020 (GMT)

The "Lorkhan and his avatars" note

I'm genuinely not sure how the "Lorkhan and his avatars" note section fits in the revamped article, especially since the new information we got on the Shezarrine divorces the concept from the whole Talos-Lorkhan relationship discussion.

The Shezarrine is just one amongst several variants of Shezarr as a wise bearded teacher in Nedic folklore. That's it. The avatars list makes more sense in the Lorkhan article (where it can already be found) than in this one. -ColovianHastur (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The Shezarrine has been suggested by Footsteps of Shezarr to be "The Shor who lives". It shows up isolated from the other Shezarr myths in the area, depicting him on a "a stone tablet said to have been found in the ruins of Sedor depicts a bearded figure as "the Shezzarine, Shor-Who-Lives, Teacher of Men.". This doesn't divorce the concept from the common precept that the "Shezarrine", akin to the Nerevarine, is the incarnation of the deity Lorkhan in a mortal Avatar. This is also suuggested in the original text "Song of Pelinal" itself, which states Pelinal may be an incarnation of a god, who has incarnated before.

Further than that, we have citations in the article, where developer Michael Kirkbride affirms on numerous occasions that Lorkhanic Heroes whom are "Avatars of Shezarr/Lorkhan", is exactly what the Shezarrine is. The Footsteps of Shezarr further expands on how the term originates, but the only suggestion as to its' meaning is "Shor-Who-Lives". it does not only claim he is a teacher, it is Lorkhan but he's back and alive again, I think the article would remiss not to make note of the Avatars list in particular as it further supplements the meaning of "Shezarrine".

Beyond the Avatars list, which I hadn't yet returned since I planned to come here to discuss, none of the sources I shared in the article contradicted what is present in Footsteps of Shezarr, and only further supplements the article. The nature of Pelinal is tied to the concept of Shezarrine, as the term is tied to him. On top of Kirkbride being the inventor of the term, Even "Footsteps of Shezarr" furthers these ties, by assigning the wandering Shezarr White hair, a characteristic of Pelinal. Besides the question of "contradiction", the sources I added in the main body text were all canonical, the only non canonical ones being comments by Kirkbride, all relegated to the notes section. -- The Entity (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with what Entity added besides the fact that Pelinals page already covers some of it.Tarponpet (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What Kirkbride claims is irrelevant. He is not Word of God nor is he the ultimate authority on lore. His statements, made in a non-official position, have been refuted by canonical lore. And Footsteps doesn't further any ties. It outright breaks them. Footsteps of Shezar states very clearly that the figure of the Shezarrine is part of a category of pre-Ayleid Empire depictions of a bearded Shezarr where he is NOT a warrior-ruler. The colour of his hair is not the defining feature, but the fact that Shezarr in these guises has a beard. Pelinal, as the Song and other sources state, is very much both a warrior and a ruler, and there is no mention of him having a beard.

In any event, the Song of Pelinal isn't even an historical account. It is an in-universe work of fiction of dubious origins compiled during the Second Empire, which is based on historical events.-ColovianHastur (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a matter of taking Kirkbride as gospel it's including the full context of why someone would call Pelinal by such a name, which in itself is worthwhile information. The validity of Song of Pelinal isn't an argument here. Regardless of how true you think it's Events are it's still an in-unniverse retelling of some definetly real events.Tarponpet (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Song of Pelinal is fully fictional or invalid as a source. I'm saying its a work of historical fiction in the same vein as "The Last Year of the First Era" or the real world "I, Claudius". Pelinal's identification as possibly being the Shezarrine by a random soldier who is then killed in his sleep by moths because of it is, as far as we know, a non-historical piece of flavour the writer of that chapter of the Song added, much like the general dialogue of the work. In any case, what is being ignored here is that not only does Pelinal himself refute any association with Shor in the Song, but Pelinal's archetype (itenerant warrior-king) doesn't match the "Stranger" archetype in which the Shezarrrine is included - a bearded and wise teacher who is specifically described as not being a warrior-king.

MK's comments could have provided valid context before, but ESO has decided to move on from his personal vision on what the Shezarrine is and if Pelinal was it.

Yes, Pelinal might be an avatar of the Missing God, but as Footsteps of Shezarr indicates, he is not the Shezarrine (which is just one amongst several other variants of Shezarr as the bearded wise stranger), which represents something which Pelinal does not. The info TheEntity added in the main body doesn't belong in the article because it is just an argument for Pelinal as an avatar of Lorkhan, not for Pelinal as the Shezarrine. The notes could stay, but they have to be rephrased, since MK's vision for the Shezarrine no longer matches what the Shezarrine became under the current lore writers. -ColovianHastur (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Re:ColovianHastur, No Kirkbride is not the sole authority, but he elaborates on a term left largely vague on the lore and it supplements the article which meets the standards for UOL.

Nothing in Footsteps contradicts anything in the Song or Kirkbride's statements. Foosteeps claims that the Shezarrine is the title on a particular tablet, the author, Sister Priscia Stolvo, groups together these various tales. The Shezarrine is listed among portrayals of that teacher archetype by the author because of the title "Teacher of Men" and the Shezarr part, but the book makes no statement whatsoever that the Shezarrine is constricted to that archetype and can appear no other way. No hard statement is either made claiming "The Shezarrine is not an Avatar", or anything else to that effect. The meaning of the title itself is also left unclear, the Author lacks full context for what the term means, because again, they had a singular tablet that mentions in, and related it to various other Nedic tales mentioning Shezarr. "Shezarrine" is a title denoting something, but we can't say for certain, it's also listed alongside Shezarrine that said figure is also known for being "Shor-Who-Lives" and "Teacher of Men". Shor is the bloodthirsty warlord of Nordic myth, that's well established. Teacher of Men rhymes with the other tales depictions of Shezarr, but again is not exclusive to anything else. Shezarrine is pretty much in the same spot as it was before this text dropped.

Quote: Footsteps of Shezarr indicates, he is not the Shezarrine (which is just one amongst several other variants of Shezarr as the bearded wise stranger)

Shezarr in particular within these tales, not being Warrior like, has little baring on the Shezarrine as a whole, or on Shezarr, because this is not the sum total of Shezarr's depictions, nor is it even mutually exclusive to Shezarrine or Shezarr as a Warrior. "Shezarrine, Shor-Who-Livers, Teacher of Man", is all a single tablet says about the enigmatic figure which gives multiple titles. That this refers to "Shezarr of the Snowy beard" is Sister Prsicia's conjecture. Nothing is flatly changed. As for Shezarr's cultural depiction beyond "Footsteps of Shezarr";

In the earliest Cyro-Nordic stories of the Heartland, Shezarr fought against the Ayleids (the "Heartland High Elves") on mankind's behalf.

Shezarr, as a result, had to change. He could no longer be the bloodthirsty anti-Aldmer warlord of old. He could not disappear altogether either, or the Nords would have withdrawn their support of her rule.

The nature of Shezarr is dualistic from what we're told, in Cyrod. An inspiration and teacher in some contexts, a Warrior lord in others, and we have no clear statement on what Shezarrine means, but it has titles that nod at both

The contradiction you're seeing, that Shezarrine is inherently a non warrior aspect of the Missing God, and Pelinal, while maybe an Avatar of such, is clearly a Warrior one, and thus Pelinal (and Avatars) =/= Shezarrine (which would null MK's comments), is not a contradiction that exists as far as I can see.

As for the validity of the Song of Pelinal, I don't believe it can be viewed in the same manner because while those text were intentionally and noted to be written with flare and myth beyond what may truly have occurred, the Song of Pelinal is a oral tradition, an attempt to tell actual historical events as best as possible. "The Shezarrine"'s mention is notable for how within its context, it's claimed once, and so we must infer what that means in context. With the allusions to Pelinal being of the Missing God, that informs what the term may mean. Kirkbride's comments supplement that. This, on top of the Songs having much of their contents matching the events described by Pelinal in KOTN.

tl;dr Other avatars of Lorkhan don't need to all be classified as Shezarrine for the term to be applicable in more than one place. Even in the text, Shezarrine does not serve as a catch-all term for the figure Hastur claims it solely represents; the idea that Shezarr is a term specific to the bearded wise stranger and teacher is not represented in the text (in no way does the following statement suggest that the following depiction is the one and only figure Shezarrine can accurately be applicable to: "a stone tablet said to have been found in the ruins of Sedor depicts a bearded figure as "the Shezzarine, Shor-Who-Lives, Teacher of Men."), and is contradicted by the fact that said depiction of Shezarr also goes by other names. Among these including, straight up, several instances of Shezarr outright. If the stranger can simultaneously be identified as Shezarr and as Shezarrine, then that dynamic should logically apply to other figures with strong connections to Shezarr; Pelinal very much among them. It does not have to universally apply, but nothing about the way the Shezarrine is presented in the text contradicts the idea that it can be a term that only occasionally pops up in certain subcultures to refer to comings-of-Shezarr. More than that, Pelinal is a figure we see incarnating multiple times, per the Prophet and the events of KotN: "You are an embodiment of Pelinal Whitestrake, the bane of Umaril the Unfeathered.", so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that Pelinal himself was an embodiment of Shezarr. And the Prophet further suggests that the divine change shapes in accordance with the times: "Should you face Umaril, you would suffer the same fate as Pelinal. But times change and even the shape of the divine itself must change with it.-- The Entity (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Entity and believe his edits should remain. A new book introduced by eso, that plays very heavily off of both the Songs and Shezarr and the Divines is no more or less reliable of a source than those texts and shouldn’t be treated as some end all be all that is given priority anywhere it’s thought to conflict with those texts. But even with that being said I agree with Entity's conclusion that there isn’t an inherent conflict to be found anyway. Certainly not things like "Pelinal isn’t said to have a beard" as some sort of proof when there’s also absolutely nothing saying he doesn’t have a beard. And given his title of 'Ysmir' attributed to him in one source, and Vivec's description of Ysmir's "always appearing as bearded kings" it’s certainly very plausible that Pelinal in fact had a beard. Certainly in one of various incarnations of which he’s said in multiple sources to have had several. Dcking20 (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

(←) I definitely think more could have been preserved from the 20th June version of this article. We can absolutely grant more weight to the new Nedic definition from ESO, but this does not negate a decade+ of existing lore that more closely associates the term with Pelinal. The new information is not a retcon. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with Hastur here. I think Kirkbride providing context on the lore which he himself wrote isn't meaningless. A lot of the objections here are frankly pedantic. 177.51.198.86 13:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a disconnect between the discussion of Pelinal and the discussion of the Avatars of Lorkhan. The Avatars list seems to be unnecessary on this page, instead belonging on the Lorkhan page. The list of avatars given consists of Zurin Arctus, Ysmir Wulfharth, and Tiber Septim, and no one else. These three have never been directly connected to the idea of the Shezarrine as far as I'm aware. The only connections I know of between these three and Lorkhan are the Arcturian Heresy saying Wulfharth was "not quite Lorkhan", Talos being the new God of Mankind and heir of Lorkhan, the Songs of Wulfharth featuring Shor often (despite Wulfharth decidedly NOT being Shor in these songs), everything with the Mantella, and everything with the name Ysmir. None of these connections besides the Ysmir one relate to the Shezzarine at all, just to Lorkhan in general. The idea that any avatar of Lorkhan is also a Shezzarine by definition isn't explicitly stated (despite it being a fair assumption), so I think the list doesn't add anything to the Shezzarine page. This page should be about those that have been deemed a Shezzarine, just like for instance the Dragonborn page is about those deemed a Dragonborn. Generic information on avatars of Lorkhan should be on the Lorkhan page, just like random avatars of Akatosh (like the Drake of Blades) should be on the Akatosh page and not the Dragonborn page. The Shezzarine is Shor-Who-Lives, and this doesn't fit into the Akatosh-Who-Lives (Dragonborn) aspect of Tiber Septim and Ysmir Wulfharth or the Magnus-Who-Lives (said to be associated) aspect of Zurin Arctus. These three seem to be avatars of Lorkhan in a different way.

As for Pelinal Whitestrake, the Footsteps of Shezarr seems to differentiate between these avatars of Shezarr and Pelinal. It explicitly says the Teacher of Man help from Shezarr is an entirely different kind of divine help than Pelinal was. That said, the Shezzarine being a teacher of man only comes from this tablet from the Thousand Men of Sedor. The other examples mentioned in that book call this same being "Shezarr". I think the Footsteps of Shezarr is about the appearances of Shezarr as a teacher, almost in response to the idea of the Shezzarine being just a sorcerer king as described in Before the Ages of Man. I don't think the book is meant to say that Shezarr never came in the form of a warrior, just "look at these stories where he isn't a warrior". It even seems to hint at this where it acknowledges the warrior aspect of Shor in the times of Atmora, the Teacher role afterwards, and hope reigniting during the time of Pelinal. It seems this book fills in the gap between Atmora and Pelinal, it doesn't retcon Pelinal. Overall, I think this is more so meant to expand on what we know, not somehow erase it, so Pelinal being a potential Shezzarine while still being a warrior definitely still belongs on the page.

In summary, I don't think the avatar list should remain because that wasn't connected to the Shezzarine, just to Lorkhan. This is akin to beings connected to Akatosh being written under the Dragonborn article in my opinion. The only connection between Septim, Arctus, and Wulfharth have to being the Shezzarine is the Ysmir connection to Pelinal. However, I don't think the Teacher of Man role of the Shezzarine is meant to replace the warrior-ruler information, but rather tell us what Shezarr (of which one iteration was called the Shezzarine by name) was doing between being a warrior for the Nords (Harrald Hairy Breeks) and for the Nedes (Pelinal). BananaKing5 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)