New necromancer companion is the biggest disappointment out of them all yet

Warhawke_80

Well...the entire companion system needs to be overhauled...they are more or less Mannequins that do little more than non-combat pets...

This is a symptom of a poor A.I. that infects the entire game....I first noticed it when I saw the creepy thousand yard stare that all mounts have....leading up to how NPC's will repeat the same line two or three times....I guess it was standard in 2014, but today we are just technologically capable of so much more.

I don't see why we just can't grab one of our house guest and go off on a fun interactive adventure? Or at the very least have my wolf bark and growl during combat instead of that creepy creepy half smile it has....

There is so much more that can be done.....

Jaimeh

Syldras wrote: »

I have the impression they don't want to rely on the biggest stereotypes when creating companions (otherwise Azandar would have become an Altmer), but there's a large span between the absolutely stereotypical comic book villain (evil laughter, eating children, kicking puppies) and the "typical good hero". Something inbetween, at least morally grey, might have been a better decision. But then again, I don't want to judge yet - maybe his whole story is very well-written and explains everything. I've only read parts of it yet, as I'm not logging into PTS this time.

I noticed this as well, they're trying to make them subvert expectations or at least be surprising, but sometimes it doesn't work with their reactions to things and associated voice acting, or it's downright disturbing. I think since the game has already had a few different companions already, they could go with the more stereotypical route and give people a 'mwahaha' evil companion since a lot seem to ask for one. Imo, the first generation of companions seem the most rounded to me, even if their stories weren't as compelling as some of the stories that came afterwards.

Syldras

Jaimeh wrote: »

I noticed this as well, they're trying to make them subvert expectations or at least be surprising, but sometimes it doesn't work with their reactions to things and associated voice acting, or it's downright disturbing. I think since the game has already had a few different companions already, they could go with the more stereotypical route and give people a 'mwahaha' evil companion since a lot seem to ask for one. Imo, the first generation of companions seem the most rounded to me, even if their stories weren't as compelling as some of the stories that came afterwards.

They try not to be stereotypical somehow, but still, all betmer have some slavery background...

I think an appealing "evil" companion wouldn't even have to be cliché evil. At least I'd prefer some interesting background. And I do absolutely not mean a "bad circumstances have lead this poor soul astray" sob story, because in the end that would make the companion feel "actually nice" again (and could lead to expectations they could be "fixed" and there could be another of these trope-y "redemption arcs" I've grown tired of). I'm thinking more of a philosophical background or something like that. Or just a bad character - greedy, selfish, powerhungry people do exist after all, and there's not neccessary some "tragic background" for that.

Of course this might be harder to write (or rather uncomfortable?) because it means one might have to take a perspective that's not exactly nice and that may conflict with one's real morals to believably write such a character. And taking a new perspective might even lead to questioning one's own world view (which doesn't neccessarily mean adopting the "evil" view, but it might still lead to questioning things). Although I'd expect a writer to be able to do that.

Dax_Draconis

I just want his perk.

katanagirl1

Syldras wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

I noticed this as well, they're trying to make them subvert expectations or at least be surprising, but sometimes it doesn't work with their reactions to things and associated voice acting, or it's downright disturbing. I think since the game has already had a few different companions already, they could go with the more stereotypical route and give people a 'mwahaha' evil companion since a lot seem to ask for one. Imo, the first generation of companions seem the most rounded to me, even if their stories weren't as compelling as some of the stories that came afterwards.

They try not to be stereotypical somehow, but still, all betmer have some slavery background...

I think an appealing "evil" companion wouldn't even have to be cliché evil. At least I'd prefer some interesting background. And I do absolutely not mean a "bad circumstances have lead this poor soul astray" sob story, because in the end that would make the companion feel "actually nice" again (and could lead to expectations they could be "fixed" and there could be another of these trope-y "redemption arcs" I've grown tired of). I'm thinking more of a philosophical background or something like that. Or just a bad character - greedy, selfish, powerhungry people do exist after all, and there's not neccessary some "tragic background" for that.

Of course this might be harder to write (or rather uncomfortable?) because it means one might have to take a perspective that's not exactly nice and that may conflict with one's real morals to believably write such a character. And taking a new perspective might even lead to questioning one's own world view (which doesn't neccessarily mean adopting the "evil" view, but it might still lead to questioning things). Although I'd expect a writer to be able to do that.

Interesting thought, but how would this work? It could have your companion working against all of your quest goals. Like you’re supposed to help this questgiver and your evil companion kills them instead. You’re supposed to collect these things to turn in for the quest and your evil companion steals them instead. It might be interesting for one quest if it allows for that but could get old fast.

Syldras

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Interesting thought, but how would this work? It could have your companion working against all of your quest goals. Like you’re supposed to help this questgiver and your evil companion kills them instead. You’re supposed to collect these things to turn in for the quest and your evil companion steals them instead. It might be interesting for one quest if it allows for that but could get old fast.

Just because a character is "evil" it doesn't mean they would have to harm everyone at any time. They can still be interested in earning gold, gaining allies and maybe people's trust because it could be useful for their own selfish plans. Their "evilness" could show in the comments they give on different situations and a generally not very moral behaviour, as in not being bothered by all kinds of criminal activities - murder, theft, robbing travelling merchants, threatening people,... Their mindset could be shown by their reasoning; they could say that everything was justified if it brought them an advantage, that morals were for the weak, or that it was the legit right for the strongest to take whatever they want. As a rough outline. Lore-wise it could be justified by belonging to a certain social group or faction or having a certain belief. Maybe a self-entitled noble considering commoners to be inferior and not deserving of any respect. Or someone who finds they had been wronged before too and no one would really care for morals anyway. Or a cultist of some kind. Maybe a follower of Mephala or Boethiah. There are lots of possibilities. If we go deeper in lore and think of a more complicated background that could function as a motivation for that character, even more.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Interesting thought, but how would this work? It could have your companion working against all of your quest goals. Like you’re supposed to help this questgiver and your evil companion kills them instead. You’re supposed to collect these things to turn in for the quest and your evil companion steals them instead. It might be interesting for one quest if it allows for that but could get old fast.

Just because a character is "evil" it doesn't mean they would have to harm everyone at any time. They can still be interested in earning gold, gaining allies and maybe people's trust because it could be useful for their own selfish plans. Their "evilness" could show in the comments they give on different situations and a generally not very moral behaviour, as in not being bothered by all kinds of criminal activities - murder, theft, robbing travelling merchants, threatening people,... Their mindset could be shown by their reasoning; they could say that everything was justified if it brought them an advantage, that morals were for the weak, or that it was the legit right for the strongest to take whatever they want. As a rough outline. Lore-wise it could be justified by belonging to a certain social group or faction or having a certain belief. Maybe a self-entitled noble considering commoners to be inferior and not deserving of any respect. Or someone who finds they had been wronged before too and no one would really care for morals anyway. Or a cultist of some kind. Maybe a follower of Mephala or Boethiah. There are lots of possibilities. If we go deeper in lore and think of a more complicated background that could function as a motivation for that character, even more.

Also, just want to point out that there is a difference between 'insanely evil' and evil.

Someone who is 'evil' is likely going to to at least *pretend* to fit in, so they wouldn't go around killing random people for the lolz. They wouldn't just steal because they are evil, because they would realize that they have to 'fit in' in order to not be hunted down.

Too many people go for 'insanely evil' where you can't see how this person made it to adult hood, let alone to the leader of a huge cult, with how they are portrayed. People would have cottoned on to them long before that point if they went around working against everything around them.

Instead, they likely would be, as you said, not being bothered by criminal behavior going on around them, or through them working behind the scenes, such as encouraging the player character to ignore doing 'good deeds' or pointing out that the thieves guild and dark brother hood are *right there!*

They could take glee in fighting people that are seen as 'good' and be sad that you have to kill raiders/slavers/other people who are generally classed as 'evil'.

Heren

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Interesting thought, but how would this work? It could have your companion working against all of your quest goals. Like you’re supposed to help this questgiver and your evil companion kills them instead. You’re supposed to collect these things to turn in for the quest and your evil companion steals them instead. It might be interesting for one quest if it allows for that but could get old fast.

It's kinda out of the windows that a companion that actually conflict with how you play the game ( and i'm not talking about decrease of relationship, that does not impend your play ) is created, for obvious reasons; thus you argument are... rather irrelevant.

The 'alignement' of a companion most likely come from two things : storie ( ie the quests ) and reactions in the open world ( there may be additional incomes but I'm rather confident that they will stay narratives, if I can say so ). A companion may disagree about your action, but they won't prevent you from doing it ( as far as I know at least ! ).

And as other have said, evil / bad doesnt mean insane / chaotic, and even so, this chaos don't need to manifest everytime ( and most likely won't ); both Embers and Sharp-as-Night displayed chaotic tendencies, or we were told from others npc they did chaotic things, but I don't think they're evil ( I didn't do their entire questlines, just unlocked them, so I have a rather limited point of view about them but from what people tell, I don't think they are ).

And I don't think you need to have a companion that is the equivalent of Mannimarco, or others big bad guys we've come across that schemed to destroy the world ( or other similar things ). A ruthless adventurers, for whom other lives don't mean much, willing to do morally reprehensible things to earn some golds; a scholar willing to do anything to gain power; a vampire that really enjoy killing mortals, drinking their blood, and turning them into bloodfiend; etc. Even something like a reachmean, revering Molag Bal and other daedric princes what are commonly viewed as evil and thus considering that the world is a proving ground in wich is kill or be killed, and that the act of killing is never wrong in itself, someone with a rather alien moral, not necesseraly evil in their goals but in their actions only, because that's how they view the world.

Tricky to write ? Maybe. Something ZOS would actually release ? Difficult to say. But possible ? I'd say yes, absolutely !

And as for the question - but why would such a bad character become a companion, following our character ? Once again, lots of possibilities :

- The delusionnal inversed relationship - Azandar style. He really seems to think that we are the one following him, but we clearly know better - also I don't play with him. A bad companion could act, or think, that he is the one in charge, and we are here to assist them, rather than the other way around. A delicate writting certainly, but hey, we do have Azandar.

- The lawful bad guy; there are many possible reasons why someone bad would stay with us, because they feels they are bound to do so : honor, tradition, a debt to repay, etc. Bit cliché, but surely you can pull some obscure argonian tradition that bind someone to another one under certains circumstances, and have an argonian, though evil, that won't dare break such rule.

- The actual magical binding : ok let's get wild - you find instructions in an old ( obviously ! ) ayleid ruin to bring back one of them from death, or reanimate one, and you find a way to alter the ritual so the ayleid brought back is bound to you, just like a common skeleton ( but a bit more powerful, and with it's personnality and will intact of course ). Here you have an evil ayleid companion, most likely keen on killing you, but unable to do so because of magickal bindings.

- Necessity; remember that ruthless adventurer, willing to do morally reprehensible things for some gold ? Turns out is also a bit dumb, and he pissed off powerful people doing these morally reprensible things - he killed the childs of a dunmer notable, or maybe he get manipulated in doing that kind of things. Now, he either stay with us, or die alone - and dying won't get him very far.

On a personnal note, I would really like an evil companion. Not because i'm evil ( I told so to the court as well ), in fact funnily enough I don't really like playing evil on games that let you do so and I will instinctively avoid doing so, but because I like options, and variety. And because an evil companion may also be an opportunnity to look at some darker things in Tamriel, to tell some darker stories, a thing that is still happening ( again, I've only do the unlock quest of Sharp-as-Night, but I really like it and just lacked motivation to do the rest ), but sometime feel like... a bit watered down. Recently come accross a note in Gold Coast talking about what seems to be human shipments being smuggled in, and well barring Sharp that really feels more telvannish that anything I've seen in Telvanni Peninsula...

Anyway, i've gone far away from the op, sorry for that ! And i'm definitely curious about this khajiit, was looking for a healer companion for a long time and he looks like he fit this role.

katanagirl1

Heren wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Interesting thought, but how would this work? It could have your companion working against all of your quest goals. Like you’re supposed to help this questgiver and your evil companion kills them instead. You’re supposed to collect these things to turn in for the quest and your evil companion steals them instead. It might be interesting for one quest if it allows for that but could get old fast.

It's kinda out of the windows that a companion that actually conflict with how you play the game ( and i'm not talking about decrease of relationship, that does not impend your play ) is created, for obvious reasons; thus you argument are... rather irrelevant.

The 'alignement' of a companion most likely come from two things : storie ( ie the quests ) and reactions in the open world ( there may be additional incomes but I'm rather confident that they will stay narratives, if I can say so ). A companion may disagree about your action, but they won't prevent you from doing it ( as far as I know at least ! ).

And as other have said, evil / bad doesnt mean insane / chaotic, and even so, this chaos don't need to manifest everytime ( and most likely won't ); both Embers and Sharp-as-Night displayed chaotic tendencies, or we were told from others npc they did chaotic things, but I don't think they're evil ( I didn't do their entire questlines, just unlocked them, so I have a rather limited point of view about them but from what people tell, I don't think they are ).

And I don't think you need to have a companion that is the equivalent of Mannimarco, or others big bad guys we've come across that schemed to destroy the world ( or other similar things ). A ruthless adventurers, for whom other lives don't mean much, willing to do morally reprehensible things to earn some golds; a scholar willing to do anything to gain power; a vampire that really enjoy killing mortals, drinking their blood, and turning them into bloodfiend; etc. Even something like a reachmean, revering Molag Bal and other daedric princes what are commonly viewed as evil and thus considering that the world is a proving ground in wich is kill or be killed, and that the act of killing is never wrong in itself, someone with a rather alien moral, not necesseraly evil in their goals but in their actions only, because that's how they view the world.

Tricky to write ? Maybe. Something ZOS would actually release ? Difficult to say. But possible ? I'd say yes, absolutely !

And as for the question - but why would such a bad character become a companion, following our character ? Once again, lots of possibilities :

- The delusionnal inversed relationship - Azandar style. He really seems to think that we are the one following him, but we clearly know better - also I don't play with him. A bad companion could act, or think, that he is the one in charge, and we are here to assist them, rather than the other way around. A delicate writting certainly, but hey, we do have Azandar.

- The lawful bad guy; there are many possible reasons why someone bad would stay with us, because they feels they are bound to do so : honor, tradition, a debt to repay, etc. Bit cliché, but surely you can pull some obscure argonian tradition that bind someone to another one under certains circumstances, and have an argonian, though evil, that won't dare break such rule.

- The actual magical binding : ok let's get wild - you find instructions in an old ( obviously ! ) ayleid ruin to bring back one of them from death, or reanimate one, and you find a way to alter the ritual so the ayleid brought back is bound to you, just like a common skeleton ( but a bit more powerful, and with it's personnality and will intact of course ). Here you have an evil ayleid companion, most likely keen on killing you, but unable to do so because of magickal bindings.

- Necessity; remember that ruthless adventurer, willing to do morally reprehensible things for some gold ? Turns out is also a bit dumb, and he pissed off powerful people doing these morally reprensible things - he killed the childs of a dunmer notable, or maybe he get manipulated in doing that kind of things. Now, he either stay with us, or die alone - and dying won't get him very far.

On a personnal note, I would really like an evil companion. Not because i'm evil ( I told so to the court as well ), in fact funnily enough I don't really like playing evil on games that let you do so and I will instinctively avoid doing so, but because I like options, and variety. And because an evil companion may also be an opportunnity to look at some darker things in Tamriel, to tell some darker stories, a thing that is still happening ( again, I've only do the unlock quest of Sharp-as-Night, but I really like it and just lacked motivation to do the rest ), but sometime feel like... a bit watered down. Recently come accross a note in Gold Coast talking about what seems to be human shipments being smuggled in, and well barring Sharp that really feels more telvannish that anything I've seen in Telvanni Peninsula...

Anyway, i've gone far away from the op, sorry for that ! And i'm definitely curious about this khajiit, was looking for a healer companion for a long time and he looks like he fit this role.

Yes, there are different categories for evil following the rules set by D&D - chaotic, neutral, and lawful. It’s hard to understand the lawful evil, villains are usually portrayed as not letting silly rules stop them from world domination, etc. I suppose a magical compulsion tying an evil character to you could be entertaining, watching him squirm as he helped your character be a goody-two-shoes and save the world, lol.

Jaimeh

Syldras wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Interesting thought, but how would this work? It could have your companion working against all of your quest goals. Like you’re supposed to help this questgiver and your evil companion kills them instead. You’re supposed to collect these things to turn in for the quest and your evil companion steals them instead. It might be interesting for one quest if it allows for that but could get old fast.

Just because a character is "evil" it doesn't mean they would have to harm everyone at any time. They can still be interested in earning gold, gaining allies and maybe people's trust because it could be useful for their own selfish plans. Their "evilness" could show in the comments they give on different situations and a generally not very moral behaviour, as in not being bothered by all kinds of criminal activities - murder, theft, robbing travelling merchants, threatening people,... Their mindset could be shown by their reasoning; they could say that everything was justified if it brought them an advantage, that morals were for the weak, or that it was the legit right for the strongest to take whatever they want. As a rough outline. Lore-wise it could be justified by belonging to a certain social group or faction or having a certain belief. Maybe a self-entitled noble considering commoners to be inferior and not deserving of any respect. Or someone who finds they had been wronged before too and no one would really care for morals anyway. Or a cultist of some kind. Maybe a follower of Mephala or Boethiah. There are lots of possibilities. If we go deeper in lore and think of a more complicated background that could function as a motivation for that character, even more.

They could also be an evil yet simple-minded companion with visions of grandeur that follows the vestige and helps out, because they think down the line the Vestige, who is already very powerful, might turn into an overlord, and that fits into their plans... And when the Vestige dies, they could have a very blasé response in their voice lines... though why the Vestige would ever decide to take them on as companion, that's another story But yes. lots of ways they could justify it.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Also, just want to point out that there is a difference between 'insanely evil' and evil.
Someone who is 'evil' is likely going to to at least *pretend* to fit in, so they wouldn't go around killing random people for the lolz. They wouldn't just steal because they are evil, because they would realize that they have to 'fit in' in order to not be hunted down.
Too many people go for 'insanely evil' where you can't see how this person made it to adult hood, let alone to the leader of a huge cult, with how they are portrayed. People would have cottoned on to them long before that point if they went around working against everything around them.
Instead, they likely would be, as you said, not being bothered by criminal behavior going on around them, or through them working behind the scenes, such as encouraging the player character to ignore doing 'good deeds' or pointing out that the thieves guild and dark brother hood are *right there!*
They could take glee in fighting people that are seen as 'good' and be sad that you have to kill raiders/slavers/other people who are generally classed as 'evil'.

I think "evil" is generally not the best term. Maybe "immoral" fits better? Even while there are personality traits that are probably most often considered evil, in the end it's a cultural question and varies from society to society whether it's considered a criminal oder unethical thing to do or perfectly fine. There are societies in Tamriel that have no problem with theft, slavery or even eating people, after all.

Jaimeh wrote: »

They could also be an evil yet simple-minded companion with visions of grandeur that follows the vestige and helps out, because they think down the line the Vestige, who is already very powerful, might turn into an overlord, and that fits into their plans... And when the Vestige dies, they could have a very blasé response in their voice lines... though why the Vestige would ever decide to take them on as companion, that's another story

Maybe the vestige is evil and wants some dumb peasant to do all the dirty work

Heren

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Yes, there are different categories for evil following the rules set by D&D - chaotic, neutral, and lawful. It’s hard to understand the lawful evil, villains are usually portrayed as not letting silly rules stop them from world domination, etc. I suppose a magical compulsion tying an evil character to you could be entertaining, watching him squirm as he helped your character be a goody-two-shoes and save the world, lol.

There is rules and rules, if I can say : just think about some lower echelon soldiers in some camps of some countries in WW2, you can say they were evil and they definitely did evil things, yet they most likely abid to rules - evil rules maybe, but rules nontheless. And sure it can be hard to translate that to a companion, but I'm pretty sure there are ways to do so.

And yes, having an evil companion doesnt mean you need to do evil things : just like Bastian get mad when you steal something or Isobel can't stand going into an outlaw refuge, an evil companion will just express is disagrement / discomfort when you choose to do good things, and that can certainly be funny to have them forced to just assist in doing so !

Syldras

Heren wrote: »

And yes, having an evil companion doesnt mean you need to do evil things : just like Bastian get mad when you steal something or Isobel can't stand going into an outlaw refuge, an evil companion will just express is disagrement / discomfort when you choose to do good things, and that can certainly be funny to have them forced to just assist in doing so !

Why? Isn't that a very comic-like idea that an "evil" person has to be repulsed by everything "good"? Depending on character traits or personal belief, there could be a dislike for showing mercy (there were a few such decisions that could be made in the original zone quests), of course, because it could be seen as being weak. But I don't think every good deed would lead to a negative reaction. Most of the time it would probably be regarded with indifference or as something neccessary to gain allies, power and influence.

Heren

Absolutely, it will depend on the character itself, of course, it was merely a vague example - I'm not even sure such a general like/dislike system about 'good things' could be implemented, because what is good would vary greatly depending on a lot of factors, and it is more simple and impactful to have a rapport system that clearly show how the character is morally speaking. And as a game, ESO do have a lot of 'comic-like' ( truth be told I don't really know what that does mean, so i'll go with 'oversimplified' ) elements.

Colovians soldiers are adversaries of the aldmeri dominion in Malabal Tor, and the daggerfall covenant I think in Bangkorai ( and Alikr too ? ), yet we just go and help them, and I don't think this issue is ever mentionned at all - the story in West Weald seems to focus almost exclusively on the threats Colovia is facing ( and to a certain extent all of reality, as Hermaus Mora would certainly say ), and the political situation of Colovia... just seems to be kinda forgotten ? I haven't finished all the quests in West Weald so maybe i'm wrong, and I certainly hope so, but for now... I've just encountered a dominion wood elf in the Dawnwood 'trying to recruit people', that would certainly qualifie as comic-like for me.

Of course, that ESO have a lot of 'comic-like' elements isn't a reason to add more, but there is a reason why clichés are clichés - they are efficient at conveying ideas, notions, to illustrate. To a certain extent / level at least - there will alway be limitations, nuances lost, generalization, when you use clichés. But people will understand that this character is good, and that one bad, and sometime it matter - and also sometime it can be done with some nuances.

And yes, 'doing good things' most likely include, well, a major chunk of the quests in the game, so yeah it's even on a practical level not a good thing ! But similar to Bastian apparently liking when you go to the help of people attacked in the wilds ( these mini-events in the base game zones ), a more evil companion could disaprove doing so, because it's a waste of time, of ressources, it's putting yourself ( and them ) at risk, it just serves no purpose; same to giving golds to beggars, allowing travelling merchants to just go without robbing them, etc. These are certainly goods deeds, ones that cost you something and don't get you anything in exchange ( experience doesn't count ).

So yeah, to create a 'good' evil companion, you would have to chose precisely what actions lead to what reactions - just like the others companions : Mirri don't mind if you steal things, but she do if you blade of woe someone. Both actions can be viewed as bad ones, yet she only react negatively to one - and same should be done, same is done to every companions. The like/dislike system do present some nuances, and the one for an evil companion would certainly do the same - a vampire companion might not like you doing fighter's guild dailies, but be indifferent about mage's guild ones, even if both of these dailies would qualifies as good actions.

katanagirl1

We may have different ideas of what being evil is, then. For example two of my characters have done Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood. Of course in real life stealing and murdering is not a good thing to do, but in context of the game neither is really portrayed as making my characters evil. Mannimarco is considered evil, perhaps because of the scope and extent of the activities he is involved in, and his goal of inflicting his plans upon the whole of Tamriel.

I suppose you can do anything in a fantasy situation, but the more believable actions are ones we can relate to in real life. We generally hang around with others who share our moral values, otherwise there is friction and it is just unpleasant to be around them. I think that is what constrains the companions, because there is no way to really play an evil character and do quests and such. I only know of one game I played where you could play two different ways - Mass Effect had the Paragon and Renegade types of play. It wasn’t true good versus evil, more of a personality considerate of others versus an I don’t care what others think type of play. Coding for truly different moral playstyles would take at least twice the work to do so.

So if there was an evil companion, the loss of rapport and possible issues with xp gains for them would make the experience frustrating for me, and I think many others too.

LaintalAy

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

Well...the entire companion system needs to be overhauled...they are more or less Mannequins that do little more than non-combat pets...

They do a fine job of standing on front of things like nodes, grapple points and NPCs that you're trying to interact with.
They also excel at kiting your enemy back from whence you came, so that when it dies, you have to go back there to loot it.

Syldras

Heren wrote: »

And as a game, ESO do have a lot of 'comic-like' ( truth be told I don't really know what that does mean, so i'll go with 'oversimplified' ) elements.

I could have also written "stereotypical", "cliché" or "unnuanced", but in case of "evil" characters especially, characters that are evil for the sake of evil, hate everything that is not evil, and don't seem to have any other characteristics or interests than being evil, remind me very much of (not exactly well-written) comic book villains.

And yes, I know that ESO has tendencies for stereotypical portrayal and tropes, more in the last few chapters than in the first ones, and it's something I have been criticizing often.

Heren wrote: »

Of course, that ESO have a lot of 'comic-like' elements isn't a reason to add more, but there is a reason why clichés are clichés - they are efficient at conveying ideas, notions, to illustrate. To a certain extent / level at least - there will alway be limitations, nuances lost, generalization, when you use clichés. But people will understand that this character is good, and that one bad, and sometime it matter - and also sometime it can be done with some nuances.

I think the average adult person can form their own opinion about a character without getting clichés shoven into their face. It's not that complicated. Also, if things aren't absolutely obvious, it could make players actually think about a situation or character more and they might gain some interesting insights, instead of just consuming a simple narration and then forgetting it again. I know it is very common especially in Western mass media to have very obvious "hero" and "enemy" characters, but in my personal opinion, it makes narrations feel less meaningful and less interesting, and it also makes me wonder whether the creators are believing their public was too dumb to understand more complex writing.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

We may have different ideas of what being evil is, then. For example two of my characters have done Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood. Of course in real life stealing and murdering is not a good thing to do, but in context of the game neither is really portrayed as making my characters evil.

Strictly seen, from a roleplay perspective, if a character steals from innocent people or even murders them, it is immoral or "evil" behaviour (with a few exceptions in which a society's traditions consider it legal under some restricted circumstances; like having an official execution writ in Morrowind, or these special theft laws in Valenwood in which stealing an item is seen as showcasing one's talent). The citizens of Tamriel would consider it such, which also shows in these activities resulting in a bounty if there's a witness. I agree though that every criminal activity in ESO feels rather trivial. It's easy to get the bounty erased, and that every killed npc just respawns in not even a minute also doesn't really help to make it feel impactful.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I suppose you can do anything in a fantasy situation, but the more believable actions are ones we can relate to in real life. We generally hang around with others who share our moral values, otherwise there is friction and it is just unpleasant to be around them. I think that is what constrains the companions, because there is no way to really play an evil character and do quests and such.

Not everyone completely avoids contact to people who have a very different mindset. Also, while the player character usually does random "good deeds" when helping npcs in quests, the true motivation isn't stated. And some people don't play all quests (or not even most), so for them there might be no conflict.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

So if there was an evil companion, the loss of rapport and possible issues with xp gains for them would make the experience frustrating for me, and I think many others too.

An evil companion complaining about my character giving gold to a beggar seems less annoying than the upcoming companion that whines about reading books.

colossalvoids

Spin wrote: »

I think the devs often forget that the game is set in an era were 3 factions are killing each other and commiting war crimes, not the age of tolerance between the various cultures and exceptions of TES

Interestingly enough that's puts a pretty fat finger on what's wrong with writing in ESO nowadays for me, if not include being just shallow overall.

Syldras

colossalvoids wrote: »

Spin wrote: »

I think the devs often forget that the game is set in an era were 3 factions are killing each other and commiting war crimes, not the age of tolerance between the various cultures and exceptions of TES

Interestingly enough that's puts a pretty fat finger on what's wrong with writing in ESO nowadays for me, if not include being just shallow overall.

Who knows, maybe the writers actually have forgotten (They also made the weird mistake of giving the player character the option to ask Naryu how she saved the Tribunal, after all)...

It might be forgiven when it comes to the Telvanni Peninsula at least, because Great House Telvanni has not joined the Ebonheart Pact and couldn't care less about the war. But then again, I'm not exactly happy about what they made of Necrom City. People wouldn't normally let masses random tourists run around in their sacred city, especially if it's also a necropolis, and it especially seems strange for Dunmer who are generally rather sceptical towards strangers.

colossalvoids

Syldras wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Spin wrote: »

I think the devs often forget that the game is set in an era were 3 factions are killing each other and commiting war crimes, not the age of tolerance between the various cultures and exceptions of TES

Interestingly enough that's puts a pretty fat finger on what's wrong with writing in ESO nowadays for me, if not include being just shallow overall.

Who knows, maybe the writers actually have forgotten (They also made the weird mistake of giving the player character the option to ask Naryu how she saved the Tribunal, after all)...

It might be forgiven when it comes to the Telvanni Peninsula at least, because Great House Telvanni has not joined the Ebonheart Pact and couldn't care less about the war. But then again, I'm not exactly happy about what they made of Necrom City. People wouldn't normally let masses random tourists run around in their sacred city, especially if it's also a necropolis, and it especially seems strange for Dunmer who are generally rather sceptical towards strangers.

I'm actually fine with genuine mistakes, but whole tone of Tamriel inhabitants nowadays reminds me of modern cities more than fictional "medieval"'ish fantasy (generalisation but yeah) ones they've been previously. Kinda miss the whole Morrowind thing with being a lone outlander in a place I genuinely do not belong.

It seems Tamrielic culture evolving backwards as games set in "modern" era's are way more ancient wired than people in the second era hehe. Would not be surprised that after Skingrad philosophers rushing for freshly baked sweet rolls we'll get some skaal couple hurrying to a riekling village for a rime latte's or else.

Heren

colossalvoids wrote: »

I'm actually fine with genuine mistakes, but whole tone of Tamriel inhabitants nowadays reminds me of modern cities more than fictional "medieval"'ish fantasy (generalisation but yeah) ones they've been previously. Kinda miss the whole Morrowind thing with being a lone outlander in a place I genuinely do not belong.

In defense of that, we're just after the second ( I think ? ) empire that unified most of Tamriel : outside what, Morrowind and the Summert Isles, and some bits of Black Marsh maybe, everything was under imperial control, in one way or another - client-state, imperial province, imperial colony. There was certainly a kind of unity, or at least a kind of openess, where one could travel the all of the empire, from Solitude to Lilmoth, without being entirely alien.

Also, to continue with you @Syldras :

I think the average adult person can form their own opinion about a character without getting clichés shoven into their face. It's not that complicated. Also, if things aren't absolutely obvious, it could make players actually think about a situation or character more and they might gain some interesting insights, instead of just consuming a simple narration and then forgetting it again. I know it is very common especially in Western mass media to have very obvious "hero" and "enemy" characters, but in my personal opinion, it makes narrations feel less meaningful and less interesting, and it also makes me wonder whether the creators are believing their public was too dumb to understand more complex writing.

I don't know if a very obvious distinction / definition of 'hero' and 'ennemy' is comon especially in western medias, I would strongly doubt that in light of some directives the chinese government made about some survival stories games ( the war of us ? Can't remember the name ), but that's just another derivation of the topic so !

I think there are distinctions to be made, between using some clichés / steretypes and showing them into your face / overusing them; I still think that using clichés can be useful in defining a character, when used in a balanced way, when chosed carefuly.

I do also agree with you that a story that call for the audience to form their own judgments, appreciations, etc, is absolutely interesting, but I would disagree that one that present, say, stereotypical facts, is inherently bad and uninteresting, because it can still raise questions, lead to debates, thinking. Trolley problem is certainly clichés, but can keep questionning going a while.

Beside, and that's not an affirmation but a question - we may also like to have some clear cut aspects of characters we met in stories, or to have some characters at least with clear cut aspects. Having to form our own judgment with little to no evidences about every characters, or a significant number of them, in a story, good be a bit too much and also leaving us to forget about them again. 'This character ? Yeah, he did things... don't know if he was good or bad, don't care.' Again, this is not an affirmation from my part but a question i'm also asking to myself.

To add to this, clichés also derives from elements that form the specifities of some group. Having an arrogant, xenophobic altmer is cliché; having only open minded, welcoming altmer would be rather weird. If we had a dunmer telvanni companion, I would expect him to be ruthless, arrogant, and not very kind : if we had a dunmer telvanni companion that were really compassionate, empathic, thriving to help others through selfess acts... that would really question me for sure !

All in all, i'd say use of everything - with balance and good judgment. What is a good judgment though...

Syldras

Heren wrote: »

In defense of that, we're just after the second ( I think ? ) empire that unified most of Tamriel : outside what, Morrowind and the Summert Isles, and some bits of Black Marsh maybe, everything was under imperial control, in one way or another - client-state, imperial province, imperial colony. There was certainly a kind of unity, or at least a kind of openess, where one could travel the all of the empire, from Solitude to Lilmoth, without being entirely alien.

There's currently a war going on. I don't want to dive too much into modern real world history here as it could be considered politics and that's not allowed in this forum, but there are many sources on which consequences the outbreak of a war usually had on immigrants who lived in territories where they were suddenly considered a member of the enemy because of their nationality.

Heren wrote: »

I don't know if a very obvious distinction / definition of 'hero' and 'ennemy' is comon especially in western medias, I would strongly doubt that in light of some directives the chinese government made about some survival stories games ( the war of us ? Can't remember the name ), but that's just another derivation of the topic so !

I don't think present day China is a good example, for obvious reasons. But if you look at Japanese narrations for example, many characters are rather "morally grey" and characterisations of "evil" characters are usually much more nuanced than "evil guy is evil (no motivation needed)".

Heren wrote: »

Beside, and that's not an affirmation but a question - we may also like to have some clear cut aspects of characters we met in stories, or to have some characters at least with clear cut aspects. Having to form our own judgment with little to no evidences about every characters, or a significant number of them, in a story, good be a bit too much and also leaving us to forget about them again. 'This character ? Yeah, he did things... don't know if he was good or bad, don't care.' Again, this is not an affirmation from my part but a question i'm also asking to myself.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question right, but for me personally, an interesting background, philosophy or if a character did something I found interesting is the most important thing. This makes a character memorable. I don't even care if I am supposed to find the character evil or good.

Heren wrote: »

To add to this, clichés also derives from elements that form the specifities of some group. Having an arrogant, xenophobic altmer is cliché; having only open minded, welcoming altmer would be rather weird.

But even if there are cultural influences, individuals who don't think like the mainstream do exist. I wrote it in another thread: I don't think a companion should be an absolute stereotype, and I don't think making him the clear opposite of the stereotype is good either. The thing that appeals to me most would be a "natural" mix - clearly being able to see some influence of the person's upbringing, but have them still be individuals with individual opinions, doubts, flaws, quirks. Why might some young Altmer not question the arrogance of their society? Or maybe a merchant who had been travelling whole Tamriel and learned many things about other cultures and found out that they might not be inferior at all? I know that also in real life often people unfortunately don't seem to question many things, but there are always people who do.

Heren wrote: »

If we had a dunmer telvanni companion, I would expect him to be ruthless, arrogant, and not very kind : if we had a dunmer telvanni companion that were really compassionate, empathic, thriving to help others through selfess acts... that would really question me for sure !

And this is another example for what I meant: Going full cliché or doing the complete opposite in every single character trait is both not what I would call a nuanced characterisation. How could such a character look like realistically? Maybe arrogant and sceptic because of his upbringing. Might find slavery normal because he grew up at a place where everyone does it, and he has never thought much about it. But does he have to be absolutely ruthless and always ready to backstab people at any moment? That would be cliché, if we think about what House Telvanni actually consists of: It's one of the biggest Houses of Morrowind, which means it would usually consist of hundreds (thousands?) of people, who can't all be murderous all the time. Also, if the parents are Telvanni, the children are born into the House (on the same rank as their parents, by the way). Then not even all Telvanni are mages, there are also guards, merchants, alchemists/healers,... Even if the game focusses on the politics between the high-ranking members, realistically many of lower ranks would probably be rather common people. And it's also to be expected that some are just interested in magic or science or whatever scholarly pursuit. What would they do in Morrowind? Join the foreign Mages Guild? Rather not.

Dahveed

Syldras wrote: »

That's something that is noticeable through the whole game: You can make your character cliché "evil" looking, including "evil" looking mount and pet, and you can join one murder cult and you can steal, you can use a few necromantic abilities, you can (for whatever reason) threaten some travelling merchants, but except for that, you have to play the good hero if you do questing. You literally help everyone and their dog, if a companion is not the shining hero from the beginning there's a "become a better person" story arc, you can't even say something unfriendly to anyone (unless it's a story villain). Or more precise, you even become everyone's "friend" when doing their quests, you don't even have the option to say you're only a mercenary doing it for the money.

I think having more dialogue options and maybe quest choices would already help a lot. And accepting that some people might want to play an "evil" character or have an "evil" companion without a redemption arc (on in case or Zerith-var, some very unusual story to even make a necromencer a flawlessly "good" character).

This.

I know it's hard for them to make too many options available all over the place (essentially having to tweak dialogue for every quest in the game), but as a "mercenary" head cannon character I am always taking the mindset of "whatever, I'm not your friend, just pay me and I'll do it."

It gets very old in these games always saving the entire world from a growing evil ("not just Skyrim, but all of Tamriel!"). I really enjoyed the TG and DB expansions. They're all about stealing stuff, killing people and getting revenge on their enemies, which is pretty refreshing. It's a shame that most expansions don't draw from their example.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

Heren wrote: »

If we had a dunmer telvanni companion, I would expect him to be ruthless, arrogant, and not very kind : if we had a dunmer telvanni companion that were really compassionate, empathic, thriving to help others through selfess acts... that would really question me for sure !

And this is another example for what I meant: Going full cliché or doing the complete opposite in every single character trait is both not what I would call a nuanced characterisation. How could such a character look like realistically? Maybe arrogant and sceptic because of his upbringing. Might find slavery normal because he grew up at a place where everyone does it, and he has never thought much about it. But does he have to be absolutely ruthless and always ready to backstab people at any moment? That would be cliché, if we think about what House Telvanni actually consists of: It's one of the biggest Houses of Morrowind, which means it would usually consist of hundreds (thousands?) of people, who can't all be murderous all the time. Also, if the parents are Telvanni, the children are born into the House (on the same rank as their parents, by the way). Then not even all Telvanni are mages, there are also guards, merchants, alchemists/healers,... Even if the game focusses on the politics between the high-ranking members, realistically many of lower ranks would probably be rather common people. And it's also to be expected that some are just interested in magic or science or whatever scholarly pursuit. What would they do in Morrowind? Join the foreign Mages Guild? Rather not.

One of the quests I really liked was Revus and Tiras, (I hope that was their names) where Tiras is a 'stereotypical telvanni' at the start, but through experience, seems to start changing.

I also agree that I find nuanced characters a bit more appealing. I find this issue a lot more prevalent when people make up cultures. They will give the 'good' culture just about every rule/practice/law they like, and any 'bad' cultures will be portrayed as having any laws/practices/rules they dislike. Very few will have cultures that have some bad to them, when they are meant to be a 'good' culture, or some good when the culture is supposed to be 'bad'. They often do the same with people from those cultures. Instead of having a mixture of people who firmly believe in the rules/laws of the culture, people who are just trying to live, and then people who want to fight/oppose those cultures, they will portray everyone as being firmly for that culture, except the lone 'hero' who is the only one actively fighting against it. (assuming it is the 'bad' culture)

I do occasionally like the 'evil for evil's sake' approach for villains, because too often the nuances just seem to be more 'excuses for why the villain is that way' than reasons, or they will use those nuances as ways to sort of handwave away all the bad things the person has done because 'everyone has good in them'. Good nuanced villains who are still evil are really hard to come by, at least for me in the genres/media I like consuming :P

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

One of the quests I really liked was Revus and Tiras, (I hope that was their names) where Tiras is a 'stereotypical telvanni' at the start, but through experience, seems to start changing.

I don't even think that was a "typically Telvanni" thing, but more some "rich and wealthy family" issue.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I do occasionally like the 'evil for evil's sake' approach for villains, because too often the nuances just seem to be more 'excuses for why the villain is that way' than reasons, or they will use those nuances as ways to sort of handwave away all the bad things the person has done because 'everyone has good in them'.

I think the big difference is whether they make the reasoning about the "evil" behaviour a sob story or just present it more or less rationally. Sob stories sound excusing, while just some unemotional explanation that makes me comprehend why a character has some way of thinking (reasons could be their cultural background, religion, ideology, or whatever), without making it a tragic story, feels differently.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

One of the quests I really liked was Revus and Tiras, (I hope that was their names) where Tiras is a 'stereotypical telvanni' at the start, but through experience, seems to start changing.

I don't even think that was a "typically Telvanni" thing, but more some "rich and wealthy family" issue.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I do occasionally like the 'evil for evil's sake' approach for villains, because too often the nuances just seem to be more 'excuses for why the villain is that way' than reasons, or they will use those nuances as ways to sort of handwave away all the bad things the person has done because 'everyone has good in them'.

I think the big difference is whether they make the reasoning about the "evil" behaviour a sob story or just present it more or less rationally. Sob stories sound excusing, while just some unemotional explanation that makes me comprehend why a character has some way of thinking (reasons could be their cultural background, religion, ideology, or whatever), without making it a tragic story, feels differently.

I agree, I just haven't found a lot of people who are able to make that distinction.

Or, and this is the case with a lot of people these days it seems, everything is so over the top. Your villain can't have been bullied when younger, no, they have to have been bullied, lost their parents and pets in tragic and traumatizing ways, been ostracized by the entire country they live in, and their best friend decided to become the hero and stab them in the back.

Heren

Syldras wrote: »

And this is another example for what I meant: Going full cliché or doing the complete opposite in every single character trait is both not what I would call a nuanced characterisation. How could such a character look like realistically? Maybe arrogant and sceptic because of his upbringing. Might find slavery normal because he grew up at a place where everyone does it, and he has never thought much about it. But does he have to be absolutely ruthless and always ready to backstab people at any moment? That would be cliché, if we think about what House Telvanni actually consists of: It's one of the biggest Houses of Morrowind, which means it would usually consist of hundreds (thousands?) of people, who can't all be murderous all the time. Also, if the parents are Telvanni, the children are born into the House (on the same rank as their parents, by the way). Then not even all Telvanni are mages, there are also guards, merchants, alchemists/healers,... Even if the game focusses on the politics between the high-ranking members, realistically many of lower ranks would probably be rather common people. And it's also to be expected that some are just interested in magic or science or whatever scholarly pursuit. What would they do in Morrowind? Join the foreign Mages Guild? Rather not.

Of course there is a lot of possibilities to go for when creating a character, and you have to chose only one, and as I said, I do agree that some balance is good. My point here was more that, a social structure have effects on the individuals belonging to them, a society have effects on the people living in it, having grown in it. And that an individual belonging to a certain social group have more chances to display behavior common in this social group, that ones uncommon in it.

I would think that even on the lower echelons of telvanni society, competition reign. Even if you are born on the same rank of your parents, you still have I think to possibility to rise - or fall, where falling would vary between slavery, near-eternal debt to a higher member of the house, near-slavery maybe, and death. Such background would naturaly lead to ruthless characters, not only because power or greed, but because its the environment in wich they grew up, they live : you're either making your way toward the top, or you fall victim to one doing so. You may just be interested in magic or science or whatever scholarly pursuit, and just fall as well if you stay : during a certain period in a certain eastern country, you could be the most brilliant scientist doing incredibly useful work for your country - and still ending up in some cold place filled with graves, because someone less brilliant scientificaly speaking and less useful for the country was just more willing to rise, and your work - well if no-one knows about it, who care, right ?

That doesn't mean always ready to backstab people at any moment - competition and ruthlessness doesn't mean that : finding allies, powerful friend, network, gathering obligations - that last one clearly mean ruthlessness, but not backstabbing, killing or destroying someone, only that you make someone your obligé : they aren't kill, they may retain a good position, power and wealth, but when you call they will answer, or pay the price.

Beside - the story of the telvanni street sweeper that just sweep streets all day because that's its place in the house and he's not motivated to change that is not really a story I would read. Well, who knows, might be a good one ! But the story of that argonian slave that ruthlessly made her way through the ranks of house telvanni, killing even in order to progress, now, that's one that I liked.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I also agree that I find nuanced characters a bit more appealing. I find this issue a lot more prevalent when people make up cultures. They will give the 'good' culture just about every rule/practice/law they like, and any 'bad' cultures will be portrayed as having any laws/practices/rules they dislike. Very few will have cultures that have some bad to them, when they are meant to be a 'good' culture, or some good when the culture is supposed to be 'bad'. They often do the same with people from those cultures. Instead of having a mixture of people who firmly believe in the rules/laws of the culture, people who are just trying to live, and then people who want to fight/oppose those cultures, they will portray everyone as being firmly for that culture, except the lone 'hero' who is the only one actively fighting against it. (assuming it is the 'bad' culture)

I do occasionally like the 'evil for evil's sake' approach for villains, because too often the nuances just seem to be more 'excuses for why the villain is that way' than reasons, or they will use those nuances as ways to sort of handwave away all the bad things the person has done because 'everyone has good in them'. Good nuanced villains who are still evil are really hard to come by, at least for me in the genres/media I like consuming :P

Still, there are some good things in ESO - like Orsinium. We see an orc society changing ( a bit at least ), while orcs mostly still being orcs and doing mostly orcs things : a lot of characters we encounter are more keen on adapting their way of life, bending some aspects of it, accepting some changes, while still retaining other aspects of orcish culture. The king ( forgot his name ) is interesting, he's a clear example of that : he's promoting new ways of life - free mariage ( or just mariage ) between orcs, the possibility for woman to rise to power, and at the same time, he have several wives ( at least two ) just like it is customary for the orc chieftains, and when it come to 'politics', he gladly followed the orcish ways.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I agree, I just haven't found a lot of people who are able to make that distinction.
Or, and this is the case with a lot of people these days it seems, everything is so over the top. Your villain can't have been bullied when younger, no, they have to have been bullied, lost their parents and pets in tragic and traumatizing ways, been ostracized by the entire country they live in, and their best friend decided to become the hero and stab them in the back.

I've been told that before. I think it's a matter of... custom, I guess? Our way of thinking is influenced by the media we consume and, generally, what we are used to. Many popular media today does show a rather simplified world view, and exactly that what you described; and people who only know that - how could they even imagine that something else might be possible? I mean, some are open-minded and creative enough to be able to, but most probably not. That's why I say that a good writer preferably should be well-versed in literature from different genres and even better also to literature history. The more understanding about how narrations can look like the better. A little simplified (for once): If someone's only input is superhero comics, their output will probably be in the style of superhero comics too. Now the big question is: How much knowledge do today's authors have (the younger ones, the upcoming generation)? Sometimes I indeed have the impression that many can only mimic current Hollywood movies and maybe do uncritical self-inserts, and that's it (which I find concerning).

I checked Tiras on UESP, by the way: He's the adopted nephew of Mistress Therana. That does explain a lot.

Heren wrote: »

My point here was more that, a social structure have effects on the individuals belonging to them, a society have effects on the people living in it, having grown in it. And that an individual belonging to a certain social group have more chances to display behavior common in this social group, that ones uncommon in it.

I agree. But still, there are always some outliers. In real life, people don't always turn out the way their society expects it either. Children also aren't neccessarily the same as their parents when it comes to beliefs or morals (I'd even say some turn out the opposite). This is why I say that being "untypical" for a race doesn't always make an ESO character unbelievable.

Although I do think it might be interesting to show "typical" mindsets (as long as it's not exaggerated to an extreme), because this can be used as a way to present lore, and a mindset that might be "exotic" from a real world modern perspective. I'd personally love to interact with a haughty highborn Altmer or a pious and honor-focussed Tribunal worshipping Redoran. Their perspective would be a more interesting narration for me than some standard "modern" generic ("flirty", "adventurous" or whatever) type, because that doesn't tell me anything new about the lore (speficially about the culture that character was supposed to have been grown up in).

Heren wrote: »

I would think that even on the lower echelons of telvanni society, competition reign. Even if you are born on the same rank of your parents, you still have I think to possibility to rise - or fall, where falling would vary between slavery, near-eternal debt to a higher member of the house, near-slavery maybe, and death. Such background would naturaly lead to ruthless characters, not only because power or greed, but because its the environment in wich they grew up, they live : you're either making your way toward the top, or you fall victim to one doing so.

Lore doesn't look like that to me. The biggest percentage of Telvanni society have the "oathman" rank, which is the lowest "regular" and stable rank in the House. Below that, there's only retainers (basically people who have just joined and are still in probation), and even further below hirelings (but those are only mercenaries and no real members of the House) and even below that slaves (who aren't considered House members either). Almost every "commoner" is an oathman: the guards, the merchants, the common mage or alchemist, clerks, scribes, etc. They can rise in rank if they show talent and are interested in a promotion, but they most probably will not fall, maybe unless they do something really stupid. But there's just no real need for competition on that rank. The town's guard, merchant or alchemist is useful, why mess with them? It would serve no purpose and be a waste of time.

Heren wrote: »

Beside - the story of the telvanni street sweeper that just sweep streets all day because that's its place in the house and he's not motivated to change that is not really a story I would read.

At least that happy street sweeping slave would be useful as a house guest

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I agree, I just haven't found a lot of people who are able to make that distinction.
Or, and this is the case with a lot of people these days it seems, everything is so over the top. Your villain can't have been bullied when younger, no, they have to have been bullied, lost their parents and pets in tragic and traumatizing ways, been ostracized by the entire country they live in, and their best friend decided to become the hero and stab them in the back.

I've been told that before. I think it's a matter of... custom, I guess? Our way of thinking is influenced by the media we consume and, generally, what we are used to. Many popular media today does show a rather simplified world view, and exactly that what you described; and people who only know that - how could they even imagine that something else might be possible? I mean, some are open-minded and creative enough to be able to, but most probably not. That's why I say that a good writer preferably should be well-versed in literature from different genres and even better also to literature history. The more understanding about how narrations can look like the better. A little simplified (for once): If someone's only input is superhero comics, their output will probably be in the style of superhero comics too. Now the big question is: How much knowledge do today's authors have (the younger ones, the upcoming generation)? Sometimes I indeed have the impression that many can only mimic current Hollywood movies and maybe do uncritical self-inserts, and that's it (which I find concerning).

I checked Tiras on UESP, by the way: He's the adopted nephew of Mistress Therana. That does explain a lot.

Heren wrote: »

My point here was more that, a social structure have effects on the individuals belonging to them, a society have effects on the people living in it, having grown in it. And that an individual belonging to a certain social group have more chances to display behavior common in this social group, that ones uncommon in it.

I agree. But still, there are always some outliers. In real life, people don't always turn out the way their society expects it either. Children also aren't neccessarily the same as their parents when it comes to beliefs or morals (I'd even say some turn out the opposite). This is why I say that being "untypical" for a race doesn't always make an ESO character unbelievable.

Although I do think it might be interesting to show "typical" mindsets (as long as it's not exaggerated to an extreme), because this can be used as a way to present lore, and a mindset that might be "exotic" from a real world modern perspective. I'd personally love to interact with a haughty highborn Altmer or a pious and honor-focussed Tribunal worshipping Redoran. Their perspective would be a more interesting narration for me than some standard "modern" generic ("flirty", "adventurous" or whatever) type, because that doesn't tell me anything new about the lore (speficially about the culture that character was supposed to have been grown up in).

Heren wrote: »

I would think that even on the lower echelons of telvanni society, competition reign. Even if you are born on the same rank of your parents, you still have I think to possibility to rise - or fall, where falling would vary between slavery, near-eternal debt to a higher member of the house, near-slavery maybe, and death. Such background would naturaly lead to ruthless characters, not only because power or greed, but because its the environment in wich they grew up, they live : you're either making your way toward the top, or you fall victim to one doing so.

Lore doesn't look like that to me. The biggest percentage of Telvanni society have the "oathman" rank, which is the lowest "regular" and stable rank in the House. Below that, there's only retainers (basically people who have just joined and are still in probation), and even further below hirelings (but those are only mercenaries and no real members of the House) and even below that slaves (who aren't considered House members either). Almost every "commoner" is an oathman: the guards, the merchants, the common mage or alchemist, clerks, scribes, etc. They can rise in rank if they show talent and are interested in a promotion, but they most probably will not fall, maybe unless they do something really stupid. But there's just no real need for competition on that rank. The town's guard, merchant or alchemist is useful, why mess with them? It would serve no purpose and be a waste of time.

Heren wrote: »

Beside - the story of the telvanni street sweeper that just sweep streets all day because that's its place in the house and he's not motivated to change that is not really a story I would read.

At least that happy street sweeping slave would be useful as a house guest

Sadly those are my thoughts as well, and it is concerning to me, also.

Too many people want to view things in black and white and completely ignore any shades of gray there might be, and it shows up in stories those people write.

I hadn't known that about Tiras, I just love how he seemed to grow during that one quest and would love to see more of him and Revus and Lady Laurent and Stibbons can be eaten by a voriplasm for all I care...

Another thing to note, I feel, is that people, while often a product of their environments, aren't just carbon copies, but they also don't often turn out to be negative copies either.

IE, they will have some beliefs that they retain from their parents/culture, but some of their beliefs will be different, or if they are rebelling against, the negative of the parents' beliefs/culture.

I think it would be very interesting, and this goes back to 'character growth' to have a haughty Altmer who, upon seeing the wider world for the first time, starts to realize that not all the things he has been taught as a youngster are true. Going back to the scholar we both would love to see, his quests could focus on wanting to find books he had heard about, but aren't available where he lived because they aren't by Altmer authors, or they go against what the Altmer society teaches. Or maybe they are uncensored versions of the books he has read.

By the end of it, he could still be a haughty altmer, but is slowly losing that arrogance and wants to learn more.

Through his dialogue and comments, we could learn more about how Altmer society views things, and little bits of lore he learned from his books.

I also feel it would help to show that, yes, he is a product of his environment, but he isn't a carbon copy of said environment, and isn't static.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I hadn't known that about Tiras, I just love how he seemed to grow during that one quest and would love to see more of him and Revus and Lady Laurent and Stibbons can be eaten by a voriplasm for all I care...

I don't think we'll see Tiras and Revus together again, but maybe seperately.

I've been wondering if a story about Revus progressing through the ranks would be amusing (especially if he gets promoted despite his quirks - maybe just out of luck even). I mean, he mentions he has been promoted to spellwright (in Blackwood), which is also just a type of oathman, which means he had just been a retainer before. Which means he is no born Telvanni, but joined as an adult (which I suspected anyway, as he lives far away from the typical Telvanni settlements and I think I've read somewhere that some members of the Demnevanni family are somehow involved in Imperial politics). Anyway, I digress...

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Another thing to note, I feel, is that people, while often a product of their environments, aren't just carbon copies, but they also don't often turn out to be negative copies either.
IE, they will have some beliefs that they retain from their parents/culture, but some of their beliefs will be different, or if they are rebelling against, the negative of the parents' beliefs/culture.

Unfortunately, I have the impression that it's often a rebellion just to be different than the mainstream, no matter how the mainstream looks like. It can currently be seen in my country where the mainstream is rather open-minded, and the younger generation is getting stricter and more "traditional" again. But that's bordering politics once more (all I might still add is that rebellion for rebellion's sake seems stupid to me; people should use their reason to decide on a case by case basis what makes sense and what should be changed, but unfortunately, many people rather seem to follow stupid agendas without ever questioning them).

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I think it would be very interesting, and this goes back to 'character growth' to have a haughty Altmer who, upon seeing the wider world for the first time, starts to realize that not all the things he has been taught as a youngster are true. Going back to the scholar we both would love to see, his quests could focus on wanting to find books he had heard about, but aren't available where he lived because they aren't by Altmer authors, or they go against what the Altmer society teaches. Or maybe they are uncensored versions of the books he has read.
By the end of it, he could still be a haughty altmer, but is slowly losing that arrogance and wants to learn more.
Through his dialogue and comments, we could learn more about how Altmer society views things, and little bits of lore he learned from his books.
I also feel it would help to show that, yes, he is a product of his environment, but he isn't a carbon copy of said environment, and isn't static.

Might work out well. Or he accidentally comes across a volume of the Argonian Maid or the tales of Fjokki the bard, is absolutely disgusted, and decided he'd rather return to Alinor and not leave the Isles ever again