Lore talk:Nahfahlaar

This talk page is a merged version of the old Nafaalilargus and new Nahfahlaar lore page. Please add new sections at the bottom of the page.

Restored Talk Page Discussions From NafaalilargusEdit

NameEdit

so . . . . is his name "fury elf something?" or am I being stupid 71.238.243.98 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

His name likely doesn't mean anything, unless he was taken into account when forming the dragon language. --Legoless 21:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But as I was pointing out, his name seems to fit well with the draconic name styling of skyrim, the words faal and faahliil seem to be too good of a coincidence 71.238.243.98 22:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant anyway. The name Alduin was in lore well before the creation of the dragon language as well. El Duderino 23:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you remove the Hs, it fits pretty well. Although what does "argus" mean? "Aar", meaning "servant", sounds rather similar, although I don't think it would look too good on the article without knowing what the "gus" part means. --Legoless 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking that since nafaalilargus was likely born after alduins reign that perhaps the naming conventions and language of dragons had deteriorated. But assuming the current dragon language and the naming convention of three words, then his name is fury elf servent . . . which actually makes sense in some strange way! Perhaps he was first the servent of elves then man, I dont know but I just like the fact that his name feels like it fits with the draconic language! I would kill for DLC involving Nafaalilargus, well I am glad we had this talk, from now on I am goign to assume that nafahliilaar is his proper name and he hides it so people wont bug him :P but noen of this will look good in the article, but I am glad this talk happened :) 71.238.243.98 03:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at Atlas of Dragons? There's a dragon listed that has a very similar sounding name. In fact, I was looking at this page because the names were so similar. It is possible that it is the same dragon mentioned in the lore book with changes to his name as can happen with the ages, purposeful or not. If Nafaalilargus was a servant to Tiber Septim, and the Blades were also servants, it could very well be a name change to throw them off, if he was one they were looking for. There is precedent for this dragon being the same considering in Atlas of Dragons it mentions that Nahfahlaar was protected by a king. What better protector than a Dragonborn himself? I can see this as a set up for explaining why there was a dragon under Tiber Septim. The Lorewriters, they're crafty folk. Aresvallis 23:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me take a look

"Nahfahlaar - Repeated alliances with mortal protectors which have prevented his elimination. His last known protector was the King Casimir II of Wayrest, which the Dragonguard successfully ended in 2E 369. He escaped and current location is unknown."

That is too convenient to be a coincidence!!!! But it lists him alive, funny though at the same time it lists his location to be unknown. I would venture a guess that the writer of the atlas doesnt know Nafaalilargus' fate in redgaurd. I think "Nahfahlaar" should be mentioned in this article, as a curiousity at the least 71.238.243.98 07:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The atlas dates to 2E 373, while the events of Redguard happened in 2E 864. Tiber Septim wasn't even (supposedly) born yet at the time of the book's writing. I'll add something to the article concerning this, although it would be nice to have stronger evidence to support it. --Legoless 13:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm absolutely on "team Nahfahlaar" as far as this dragon's "true name" and its meaning.

I'd like to note, as it just occurred to me today and I haven't seen it mentioned on this site, that Nahfahlaar has two translated elements (Nah, fury; Fah, on behalf of), and shares the untranslated element, Laar, with two "untranslated" Dragons, Naaslaarum and Voslaarum, encountered in the Forgotten Vale (Dawnguard). This means that Laar is a legit, canon Dragon name element and word and none of these three dragons necessarily have "false" names.

I would strongly argue that Nafaalilargus is what Tiber/others chose to call him for whatever reason. And/or the name was recorded on paper incorrectly, or translated, transliterated, or transcribed incorrectly over time. (Or, you know... it's just Bethesda being Bethesda.) Anyone could make innumerable arguments over the meaning of Laar - especially if the three dragons share something in common. As the "twin" dragons share Laar and Um in their names and are both found in an ice lake in the Forgotten Vale, one could argue Um means Lake, and Laar means whatever the three dragons have in common. But "Fury on behalf of ____" is absolutely a name for a mercenary dragon. And it is typical for Dragon Names to be descriptive of their (current) lot in life, though not mandatory (see Odahviing). --Skyrim-Junkie 21:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No one is arguing that Nahfahlaar (or the other two from Skyrim) are not legitimate dragon names, nor are we saying Nafaalilargus is not legitimate (only atypical of the three-word style), and of course laar is a word. We could argue all day (preferably on the forums) about whether or not Nahfahlaar is Nafaalilargus, but the evidence (facts) are too flimsy even if evident to make that call on the page. The atlas makes allusions to events that have not yet happened in the timeline, and the real-world time-screw of the book being written after those events are known doesn't count. It is more than likely that this was partially an attempt to give Nafaalilargus a three-word name that fit the language, but with the evidence we have I think the page as it stands is as much as can be done to explain it from a lore perspective. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm coming at this from a dragon language point of view, as this is under Name. Doesn't matter what is accepted lore and what is on the page. This is a discussion about this dragon's name. And, I was about to add, that Nah Fah Laar is a grammatical improbability (which I just realized) as no other dragon has a preposition in its name. It therefore has to be Nah Fahl Aar, with Fahl being yet untranslated. --Skyrim-Junkie 22:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The correct assertion is that no other name that has been fully translated contains a preposition, being that there are five known names that seemingly fit the three-word system and are not fully known. Being that there are unknown translations, it is incorrect to claim that no names contain or should contain a preposition when one appears to fit, but does not fit what you think Bethesda intended. However, it has already been mentioned above as a possible route to the solution, which would make it a coincidental but misleading laar shared with the other two. I apologise in advance of my next statements. This wiki uses facts in lore, and you do not and cannot produce a factual translation at this time for the name, therefore this topic cannot continue if that is all you have to contribute. The similarities with the other two dragons names led me to allow your necropost to stand, as that information was not already here and could help in the future when trying to decide which version of the name is the correct one (given that translations are obtained and that it isn't explicitly defined as some were). The unofficial dragon language translation site has an interesting discussion on the translation of Nahfahlaar which resonates but as it is not official it cannot be used. This page is for the discussion of improvements to this page, and if you wish to pursue a discussion purely on the language aspect then go to the Dragon Language talk page, but please remember that unless you can contribute some facts it will not go anywhere. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 23:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"This discussion belongs on the forums" would have sufficed, jsyk. Consider the matter ended. --Skyrim-Junkie 05:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Note regarding Dragon LanguageEdit

The following was put on the page:

There is no known translation of Nafaalilargus' name in the Dragon Language, although the "faal" in his name translates as "The", suggesting his name (which is unusually long for dragons) may have included a title. Its unknown if other Dragons possessed titles as part of their names, or if Nafaalilargus' is unique in that respect. It is possible that his alliance with Tiber Septim and service to him was the reason he had a title.

Everything beyond the first sentence seemed too speculative to me to mention, and the first sentence might qualify as original research anyways, so moving it here for whole or partial seemed appropriate. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 09:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed the note so only the first sentence remains, which seems like a fair compromise since according to our Dragon Language article, "faal" does translate to "the". While I don't think we should speculate on what his name means, if anything, I do feel it is worth noting. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DeathEdit

Being that the Dragonborn is the only one able to kill dragons completely, is it possible he is still alive, especially with the return of the dragons? TaleGunner (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2013 (GMT)

A dragonborn is the only person that can kill a dragon completely. As stated on the page "due to the nature of dragons, Nafaalilargus isn't truly dead and could be raised again." There is nothing to suggest that he has been raised again, as Alduin is the only known creature/person with the ability to do so, and there is nothing to suggest he went anywhere other than Skyrim to raise dragons. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:59, 18 June 2013 (GMT)

NahfahlaarEdit

Are they one creature? I dont see much evidence besides similar name and somewhat-nearby regions. Timeoin (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

They share enough similarities to be more than notable. The note on the translation could be seen as the dragon changing his name to avoid detection, which could be an attempt to explain the extra syllables in his name. The description in the book would be seen as a clear reference to Nafaalilargus, if it weren't beside "another" dragons name. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. (Also, I kinda figured they were as well. Just adding a discussion that can be looked at later down the track if anyone else is curious about the same thing :) Timeoin (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Links to Nahfahlaar redirects back hereEdit

It seems a bit odd that while content speculating in Nahfahlaar being the same as Nafaalilargus is being reduced here or deleted as speculative, the links to Nahfahlaar in the text ends up redirected back here. It is like UESP recognises Nahfahlaar as being Nafaalilargus, just that we do not want the Nafaalilargus article to have too much content confirming it. —MortenOSlash (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It's likely from when the content was prominent. We shouldn't speculate about them being the same, Nahfahlaar should probably just get an entry in the People list and the links should redirect there. Jeancey (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, redirects to people (or own page) and a note about the similarities linking back here. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I added it to the Lore:People P page. Please check if it is done correctly. I do not know handle the redirect page, though. —MortenOSlash (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

New Talk Page Discussions For NahfahlaarEdit

Page creationEdit

Tentatively created as a redirect. I haven't seen enough other information beyond Atlas of Dragons to warrant more than a redirect, or possibly a stub article mentioning that he might be Nafaalilargus. --Aaron of Mpls (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2013 (GMT)

Nahfahlaar is NafaalilargusEdit

Nahfahlaar's recent appearance in ESO: Dragonhold all but solidifies the ties that equate him with being the same person as Nafaalilargus. It's long been assumed that they were one in the same, the wiki even saying that up until it was removed a few months ago. Similarities include, but are not limited to:

• Both are red dragons
• "Repeated alliances with mortal allies" is a trademark, allying with Ja'darri, Sai Sahan, Casimir, and Tiber Septim/Richton
• Extremely similar names, NAHFAHLAAR and NAFAALILARGUS
• Among the few dragons known to survive in the Atlas of Dragons

It might seem odd that they'd change his name from Nafaalilargus (1995) to Nahfahlaar (2011/2019) but the reasoning is quite obvious. Dragon names were retconned by Skyrim's time to be composed of three words, unlike in previous games, where you had names like Papre or Skakmat. His inclusion in Atlas of Dragons was seemingly an explanation for how to retcon a five syllable name to something consistent. It seems using his name for strongboxes during the Dragon Rise event preceding the release of Dragonhold was a way to connect them further.

I know that most people have accepted that they're one in the same, and the only hesitation is wanting a direct confirmation. Before they revealed who it was, they did hint at him in instances beforehand. One is from an ESO Live episode where the say the powerful ally is from Elder Scrolls lore and evens the odds against the dragons, another is the Website preview article where the state "When you start the zone’s main story, a powerful and famous ally from Elder Scrolls lore joins you. No spoilers, sorry!". Some argue that them saying "from lore" instead of "from a previous game" isn't direct enough, but do keep in mind they were trying to keep it under wraps, and that saying "previous game" would make it far too obvious. Of course, if Nahfahlaar wasn't Nafaalilargus, why would they keep it a secret anyways? He'd just be some dragon mentioned in one sentence of a book, it makes more sense for them to keep the return of the very first dragon ever seen in a TES game a hidden detail instead.

Thalmor Justiciar just contacted ZOS loremaster Leamon Tuttle in a direct message about it to which confirmed that he's definitely Nafaalilargus, which like before is solid enough evidence to close this case. Now all there is to do is move the contents and history Lore:Nafaalilargus to Lore:Nahfahlaar (since copying the page content to a different name is ineffective and erases the history). The Rim of the Sky (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

Agreed, its great that it was confirmed that nafaalilargus was confirmed to be nahfahlaar. Zebendal (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

I haven't been following this too closely, but what's the status of the two pages now? I see a history merge is necessary? I can do that if one page has all the old info from the other one. --Ilaro (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

Merge is finished. --Ilaro (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

Presence of Irrelevant information on the page.Edit

I recently removed "However, due to the nature of dragons, Nafaalilargus is not truly dead and could rise once again." from this page. This was cited to "Events of Skyrim." This is referencing that dragons aren't truly dead until their soul is devoured by a dragonborn. However, Nahfahlaar is at no point mentioned in terms of him being resurrected, and this fact is not in any way unique to him. It's true of all dragons. Including this information on the page of every dragon who wasn't present in Skyrim adds irrelevant information to the page, and would be just as relevant as adding "Due to the nature of souls, this character could get saved from death by the divines" to every single human page just because it happened to several humans. I believe that removing just this line in no way removes anything useful from the page and helps clean up lorespace into a place where all information isn't present on every single page. We've been trending towards "Lore in some way touches this character or place, better add every last detail to a page", and this is just one example of that trend. Jeancey (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

This character hasn't truly been killed due to the nature of his soul. This is highly relevant information for this character, since usually when someone is "killed" the average reader will assume there's a certain permanency to this. True, this is the case for all dragons, but there is zero reason to remove a one-liner explaining to the uninformed reader that Nahfahlaar could come back since he wasn't killed by a fellow dov. Removing "detail" from an article is destructive in my opinion, so I've reverted. Expecting readers to go through the entirety of Lore:Dragon to reach the conclusion that Nahfahlaar is effectively immortal is a ridiculous position to take and does not meet this namespace's high standards of documentation. —Legoless (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

Should we omit the very relevant information that Nahfahlaar isn't truly dead? Ever since December 5th 2011 we've had the information on the article stating "[...]due to the nature of dragons, Nafaalilargus isn't truly dead and could be raised again." This is because though Cyrus kills Nafaalilargus during the Redguard questline, a great amount of lore introduced in Skyrim detailing the nature of previously little-known dragons establishes that Dragons are only killed if their souls are devoured, otherwise they can be resurrected once again, since dragons are a unique form of immortal beings (literally shards of a divine time deity). To remove this information would be to say Nahfahlaar being a dragon is irrelevant just because he doesn't show up in Skyrim, therefore we should hide the information of his divine nature just because no source in Skyrim was specific enough to state that this very particular dragon didn't have his soul devoured. Nahfahlaar's a dragon, dragons only die if their soul is consumed, Nahfahlaar did not have his soul consumed, therefore Nahfahlaar is not properly dead. This isn't information that's specific to just Skyrim. The dialogue and notes of Caluurion, which appear in ESO as a key plot point explanation for one of the DLCs, go in depth to state just how unique dragon souls are and how it effects how they die. People should know that Nafaalilargus is not dead in the same sense as other dragons, not everyone would want to read a handful of different articles to figure this out, to remove this information simply because there's no "specific enough" source for it is an innane excuse. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

This line, or something like it, is present on this page as well as: Lore:Krahjotdaan, Lore:Numinex, Lore:Thurvokun and Lore:Dragonne Papré, and could be added to Lore:Kaalgrontiid, Lore:Mulaamnir as well as any additional ESO Dragons who don't yet have lore pages but may in the future. This isn't about whether the information is provable to true, it's about relevance. 7 dragons represents a little over half the number of dragons with lore pages. It's true of all dragons, not JUST Nahfahlaar, and thus it's perfectly relevant for Lore:Dragon and probably even Lore:Soul, but it's not specifically relevant to Nahfahlaar's lore page. Jeancey (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

I agree with Jeancey on this, this information would only be of interest to me if the dragon is actually resurrected again. It would be more noteworthy and relevant if they're killed in such a manner as to leave resurrection impossible. I think for information like this that clearly applies to the majority of the species should be placed on Lore:Dragon. If the information applies to the majority of the species I can't understand why we would repeat this throughout all of the individual pages as we are doing currently. I can't see the justification for including this information and not information about Lore:Thu'um for example. Both are equally applicable to each article, but we don't mention them on each page so why would the immortality of dragons be any different? Kiz^{(email - talk)} 21:44, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

I've got to agree with Jeancey on this. Do we need to know that Alduin didn't raise them all too? It was only relevant when very few dragons were known to exist outside Skyrim the game, and all of them were left untouched. Now there are more dragons that Alduin didn't touch, or a Dragonborn didn't absorb, and that number is just going to rise. Some of them we don't even know how they died, so how can we say with any certainty that they aren't truly dead anyway. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:51, 25 October 2019 (GMT)

FenjuntiidEdit

Whoever added the bit about Fenjuntiid is wrong. It is not referring to the dragons' need to dominate, it is about them obeying the will of Akatosh. The specific quote is when Nahfahlaar is told by the Vestige that they proved themselves worthy of the Mask of Alkosh: "Fenjuntiid. The will of my father, the Dragon King of Time. All dov seek dominion, and so it is a king's command that is our bane." Then he agrees to empower the mask because the Vestige has proven thenselves a worthy ally and "a champion of my father's will." He is not saying that Akatosh's will is for dragons to dominate, he is saying that because they seek to dominate, they hate having to obey Akatosh when his will is made clear, like in this instance with it being Akatosh's will for the Vestige to receive the full power of the mask. Although this is complicated by the fact that "fen" means "will" as in the modal verb e.g. "will do," but it is clear that they meant for it to mean "will" as in the noun, but I'll chalk that up to either writer error or the words are homonyms in both English and Dovahzul. — Unsigned comment by Peter emrys (talk • contribs)

When I wrote that bit of the article, I understood that it was that like their father, the will of akatosh showcases that dragons seek domination. Nahfahlaar saw him granting the power to Ja'darri was seen as weakness and why he had come to regret it. I interpreted when you overcome it, an example would be parthurnax overcoming his will to dominate, and nahfahlaar willing to give aid mortals. The soulless one being granted the power from nahfahlaar is the dov furthur putting aside his will to dominate in order to serve the greater good of his father. About the line ""I will join with you and empower the mask. You are a worthy ally and a champion of my father's will." as well as his lines during the climax of the dlc showcase his determination to carry out akatosh's will. "All I can tell you is what Kaalgrontiid believed. He believed that with enough power, he could become a new moon in the sky. A new god to challenge Akatosh. Regardless of the truth, he had to be stopped. Now, for me, the time has come to move on." (and some undocumented dialogue pieces) showcases akatosh's will, in nahfahlaar's eyes, goes above all dragons. nahfahlaar believes that akatosh belongs at the top, and kaalgrontiid must not become equal to akatosh. The soulless one was granted the power of the mask to keep laatvulon, a lieutenant of kaalgrontiid, from carrying out kaalgrontiid's will. Later on the mask was used against kaalgrontiid, and with that the soulless one carried out their role as the champion of akatosh's will, thus ensuring that akatosh kept his dominant position.— Unsigned comment by Zebendal (talk • contribs)

DRAGONHOLD & UPDATE 24 PREVIEWEdit

[1] no longer has any mention of the dragon Nahfahlaar on the page (not sure that it ever dit?) Should it be removed from the references list?