Lore talk:Nisswo

Summary of Changes

Once again, edit summaries are too short for me to convey minor changes alongside larger changes that might prompt questions.

• Reference: Keystones of Loriasel

The text read as follows before the change: "Ancient Argonians built structures out of permanent materials like stone, filling them with magicka in an attempt to resist destruction by the elements." The italicized portion is a misinterpretation of the text in Keystones of Loriasel.

The author has this to say about the xanmeers: "Long ago, my people were powerful and learned. Xanmeers, the pyramids scattered throughout the marshes, were our creations, though details of their construction have long since passed from memory. We now see around us proud structures we once built, filled with our own Magicka."

The italicized portion is the part that was misinterpreted. The author tells us what xanmeers are, then says that these structures built by their ancestors are now filled with their people's Magicka. They explains further in the next paragraph of the book, which reads as follows: "Keystones are found in many of the Barsaebic Ayleid ruins, but only in ruins that touch lands where our ancestors lived. Tales abound of Ayleids gathering power from their captives through torment and fear. They describe a process in which Magicka is infused into stones: artifacts that were Ayleid in nature, but not Ayleid in origin. ... I theorize these keystones hold Argonian Magicka tied to our history and essential for our protection."

The Argonians were not the ones to infuse the stones with Magicka; this book is talking about how the Barsaebic Ayleids created the Loriasel keystones. Through the torment of their slaves, the Barsaebics created stones infused with Argonian Magicka. The author claims that by reclaiming these keystones, the Argonians could use these things that were created through the suffering of their forebears to protect Shadowfen.

• The most potentially "objectionable" change: removal of excessive use of "Nisswo-Kings"

Xukas uses the term to describe the role of Sithis's priesthood in early Argonian society, but he does so only once. It does not appear to be an "official" catch-all term, and nobody else in-game uses it. The long and short of it is that the term is not as prominent as the article suggested it is. We're not told precisely what kind of power they had, all we can assume is that they had a lot of influence because he uses describes them as "kings".

• Another change that might warrant questions is the removal of the paragraph where fatalism is mentioned.

The concept of ku-vastei and the notion that resisting fate is futile are not mutually exclusive beliefs. The philosophy around ku-vastei is to not allow things to stagnate. I can see how these concepts might be interpreted as opposites and therefore mutually exclusive, but they're not contradictory.

• On the removal of the Jekka-Wass connection

"By the Second Era, the Clutch of Nisswo appears to have a very close connection with the Jekka-Wass" – an order of custodians who maintain catalysts of change, such as the Xinchei-Konu Calendar."

The similarities between the care of the Xinchei-Konu and the teachings of the Nisswo are clear, but that doesn't mean they Nisswo are closely connected to the Jekka-Wats in the way the passage previously implied. The Jekka-Wats aren't custodians of catalysts, they're calendar keepers. The Captive's Journal from Ruins of Mazzatun (a very obscure reference that can be easily missed) gives us more of a clue that Jekka-Wats aren't relic keepers: In the Marsh we pay little heed to the passing of the days. We leave such things to the Jekka-Wats.

They keep track of the passing of time because the rest of Black Marsh doesn't care about that. I understand where the passage came from, but what we're presented with isn't enough for me to justify keeping it on there as evidence of a "close connection".

"former Jekka-Wass Paraxeeh, who had left to become a Nisswo, even returned to mentor his successor into becoming one as well."

This last sentence is inaccurate. Paraxeeh wasn't guiding Vozei down the path to become a Nisswo, he was testing the Jekka-Wass because the calendar is an artifact that brings about change. The point of Paraxeeh's test was to give Vozei experiences and wisdom that would give him strength and understanding enough to use it. As Nisswo Paraxeeh says: "One of such weak will can never truly be a catalyst of change".

• Removal of distate for outsiders:

"Some nisswo disdain the presence of these "Ojel" in their rituals, a common belief being that some Argonian cultural concepts can't even be explained outside their mother tongue."

The following is cited on the claim: Did I teach you to beg an ojel to perform your duties? You should have collected those tablets, Vozei! How could you not see that?

Paraxeeh isn't bothered by the fact the player character is an ojel; he's bothered by the fact Vozei sent someone else on his tablet-finding mission, which was intended to be a teaching-journey to help Vozei. Vozei has all the knowledge in the world, but he lacks wisdom and experience.

The point of this talk post is just to lay out why I made the changes that I did. The long-winded explanations are just a side effect of having limitless space with which to discuss how I came to my conclusions. I would dearly like to use subheadings, but that would give this page an unnecessary addition to the table of contents. -MolagBallet (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Good changes for the most part, but probably because of the large number of edits there was some redundant language. As well, I felt the tone did not really seem impartial in a lot of spaces. Did my changes is a couple batches so the reasoning is in history.

I'm adding to this talk however to add a couple disagreements which I did not change the article. The first is regarding the term "Nisswo-King." While it is true Xukas is the only NPC which directly uses the exact term, it's purely descriptive, he mentioned he learned it from his mentor Shuvu, and we have no reason to assume that it is atypical. Furthermore, its simply a directly accurate description of the old Nisswo. We surmise both from what Vozei and Uaxal say that the old priesthood used to be much more centralized, and so in the section title at least it makes stylistic sense to use the term to contrast the later. Remember that Nisswo as a concept have not existed prior to the Murkmire DLC, sources will be limited.

Furthermore, while it is true that the Jekka-Wass may have had other functions, Vozei (who remember, IS a Jekka-Wass) mentions that it's his primary duty to care for the Xinchei-Konu and other Ku-Vastei. The Xinchei-Konu explicitly no longer serves the role of actual timekeeping.

Finally, absolutely nothing Nedhellas says implies the entire order is on-board with bringing outsiders into the Clutch, only that Xode is and even that is inferred. Even he acknowledges that his situation is unusual. Multiple documents in ESO as well as dialogue from Xukas himself indicate that Argonians consider Ojel fundamentally unable to understand certain aspects of culture. It is in this context we should take Paraxeeh's explicit usage of the word Ojel to critique Vozei; remember, Ojel doesn't just mean outsider, it literally means someone who can't speak Jel. There's no reason to assume that other Nisswo would be any more welcoming of other races. -Speedboosttorchic (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your logic tracks, I don't have much reason to disagree. Thanks for all the work you've done on this page! -MolagBallet (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The title quote

I feel that the new title quote is not as appropriate as the old one from Speakers of Nothing. It's more about Argonian culture in-general rather than Nisswo specifically. Meanwhile, not only was the old quote specially about Nisswo, it also serves as a representation of all Nisswo and not just the Clutch of Nisswo.

I would like to change it back, but I don't want to provoke an edit-war or something else that might be bad conduct. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Speedboosttorchic (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back! That was just something I felt was more appropriate in the moment. -MolagBallet (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Changed the quote as discussed. I tried to move the speech bubble to the left, but couldn't figure out how? Anybody know? I think it would look better there, but ofc, I don't want to violate the style guide either. Speedboosttorchic (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)