I’m still befuddled by the Tanlorin quest-chain “twist.” (Avast, there be spoilers)

Heren

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

This, to me, just shows how much of this discourse is American-centric.
In every time period and culture there were people who felt that they don't fit traditional gender roles and who didn't want to be assigned to a certain gender. Including these people in stories and generally raising awareness about their experiences is a good thing in my opinion and it can add more depth to a story.
But the modern "nonbinary" thing seems very American in how it is built around pronouns and such. It seems somewhat limiting and arbitrary. Which is ironic considering that it is supposed to be liberating.

Language, as well as other things, contribute to shape our thoughts, our understanding of the world, and ( maybe ) our representation of it. As others have pointed out, the way gender is 'handled' vary from language to language : some lack the words to design a neutral being ( in french almost everything I think is gendered, from the sun ( he ) to the dust ( she ), wich when you consider it is kinda fun; but there is no they nor it ). And you have also the exact ( kinda ) contrary :

Juomuuri wrote: »

As a Finn, I'm more confused by she/her and he/him. They/them makes more sense as Finnish has no gendered pronouns. We use "hän" and "se" which are equivalent to they/them and it/its, respectively. We usually call everyone an "it" and it's normal. Trying to remember the correct gendered pronoun has always been an issue to me in English and I usually default to they/them to play it safe if I get confused. I misgender my male and female characters by accident due to this all the time! I will never understand gendered pronouns.

It's really interesting, to see just how your language shape your view and understanding of the world.

But to get back to the statement of the discourse being american-centric - in some way, maybe, as english might encourage such an understanding and a building. But that don't mean other languages and cultures can't share these views, just because theire own languages is different and naturally encourage other representations. The ideas behind the words can get translated, exchanged, explained, understood, adapted, etc, regardless of where they originate. Even if, maybe for now, these ideas are still expressed in a possibly very american way, wich can lead to some... disapointing writing ( not that is the only reasons, nor the main reason, for the actual disapointment being discussed here ! )

Syldras

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I can see this happening in the TES world, actually. As much as I like the feeling of refuge TES provides, I agree with Syldras in that it is unrealistic for a fantasy world to be completely devoid of homophobic practices, especially where nobility and the desire for an heir is concerned. Which touches on misogyny as well, when it comes down to it. Expecting a woman to marry a certain man in order to have an heir with the "correct lineage" is absolutely something that would, and does happen in this world. I've touched on these subjects myself in my own, private (Non TES) writing, because they are absolutely issues within hierarchical societies and cultures where nobility desires control over the future of finances or a kingdom.

The topic of arranged marriage in Altmer nobility is actually shortly touched upon in the last chapter.

Fennorian basically was saved from this fate by becoming a vampire and thus being "forced" to leave home (and becoming absolutely undesirable as a spouse to his fiancée and her family because of his lost social status).

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Of course, I do not condone these practices (I wish it weren't necessary to constantly assure the outside world of this)

I usually don't care to explain anymore. If someone wants to believe I condone everything from forced labour to anthropodermic bibliopegy just because I've written about it, that's their problem, not mine

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I can, however, also see Tamriel developing ways for LGBTQ+ couples to have children, through developments in magic and the world's version of science. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that this issue could be resolved, for some couples at least, through having a surrogate mother or a male donor, if they wanted to have children.

And since we've seen through Alchemy's portrayal that it is not impossible for other races to use magic in order to appear as they wish, why couldn't we have LGBTQ+ characters with unique ways of expressing their identities which involve using magic to change or shift their shape in accordance to their mental and emotional needs?

In the 3rd era, Divayth Fyr clones himself several times. And magically sex-swaps his clones to female to build his own harem without having to deal with other people (either that or he just finds himself very awesome)... I don't think the cloning is possible in ESO's time, though. Not yet. The cloning process is somehow related to the Blight or corprus disease.

But magically altering a body - that's possible already, and I'm quite sure that Tamriel's people make use of it if they can afford it. I'm not sure though whether they'd talk about it much. At least not those who just want to get their body fixed so it finally feels right to them and then live a normal life.

What's true of course is that a fantasy world with magic, souls and also curses and magical accidents of all kinds could provide a lot of background lore for unique LGBT stories. Takes creativity, of course, and real interest in the topic. If it's just about "somehow putting the current topic into the game to look modern" then... well.

SteveCampsOut

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

You could all just do as I do and ignore their storyline and make your own up in your head. Once their main quest is over, you don't have to deal with the bad writing anymore.

Yeah but it's paid content. Players deserve good content, and calling out subpar writing is just fair.
And LGBT people deserve good representation. Especially in the current political climate, flanderized LGBT characters do more harm than good. These are the kinds of characters grifters will use as a weapon against anything progressive.

Being G of the LGBT it honestly doesn't bother me. It's not even a blip on my radar of life priorities. I'll use her because of her class abilities and her purple hair. I'm a big purple fan. The rest I will gloss over and continue on my merry way down my rainbow path.

ArchangelIsraphel

Syldras wrote: »

I usually don't care to explain anymore. If someone wants to believe I condone everything from forced labour to anthropodermic bibliopegy just because I've written about it, that's their problem, not mine

Wait, what do you mean you don't condone anthropodermic bibliopegy? Uhmn, I mean, of course you don't. Me either!! *casually hides first edition copy of The Humor Of Wood Elves* >.> <.< >.>

Syldras wrote: »

In the 3rd era, Divayth Fyr clones himself several times. And magically sex-swaps his clones to female to build his own harem without having to deal with other people (either that or he just finds himself very awesome)... I don't think the cloning is possible in ESO's time, though. Not yet. The cloning process is somehow related to the Blight or corprus disease.

I hadn't run across that piece of lore about Divayth Fyr yet, but I am somehow unsurprised that he decided on that particular path XD That is a very interesting nugget of lore, however, especially considering that the Telvanni are willing to experiment in ways that aren't necessarily ethical, leading to a whole host of other questions and issues that could be used as a plot device.

Syldras wrote: »

What's true of course is that a fantasy world with magic, souls and also curses and magical accidents of all kinds could provide a lot of background lore for unique LGBT stories. Takes creativity, of course, and real interest in the topic. If it's just about "somehow putting the current topic into the game to look modern" then... well.

Agreed. Even though the activists and devs who work on these projects might have good intentions, the need to drive a specific way of thinking home hobbles the story. Where as those whose creativity is genuinely driven in this direction, without the motivation to influence anyone, but, instead, to just do it because it's what they love...that's where you get the characters that truly resonate.

I have to admit, however, there was a positive side of Tanlorin disappointing a lot of us- we're all throwing around great ideas that might result in some amazing player characters getting made because of this discussion. I'm getting a lot of insight here, personally, on angles that I could approach the creation of a non-binary character from that would be a lot of fun to write.

(I also have to praise how civil and supportive almost all of the posts have been. Even those expressing views I don't necessarily agree with haven't been rude. Which is really nice to see.)

Syldras

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Wait, what do you mean you don't condone anthropodermic bibliopegy? Uhmn, I mean, of course you don't. Me either!! *casually hides first edition copy of The Humor Of Wood Elves* >.> <.< >.>

I prefer to use my Bosmer leather for other items.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I hadn't run across that piece of lore about Divayth Fyr yet, but I am somehow unsurprised that he decided on that particular path XD That is a very interesting nugget of lore, however, especially considering that the Telvanni are willing to experiment in ways that aren't necessarily ethical, leading to a whole host of other questions and issues that could be used as a plot device.

I think "I could need company but people annoy me too much with their idiotic chatter so I just clone myself and become my own wifes" is very wholesome! By Telvanni standards, I mean

Now I have to imagine that narrated in today's unfortunately not uncommon "everything has to be presented as a moral lesson for the reader" writing style

But seriously, Morrowind was special. Interesting characters and concepts, not a carbon copy of the Western real world, aspects that would probably be considered "progressive" in terms of gender nowadays, that were not included to convey some moral message, but were just naturally part of the world. Like Vivec. Or cloning and sex-changing yourself. Or being reincarnated as a different sex.

Although that's an interesting aspect, actually: The question most often asked is how the people of Morrowind would react to Lord Nerevar being reborn as something very different to his original form. How would the Dunmer react if he would, let's say, return as an Orc or a Khajiit? But I have never seen people wondering how Nerevar Indoril himself would feel suddenly returning to the world as a female Argonian. I imagine the physical change might... not be easy. I'd probably speedrun to Red Mountain just to jump into the crater.

TaSheen

Y'know.... I didn't enjoy TES III personally. But I very much DID appreciate the actual flexibility in that game.

Syldras

I'd like to leave this article here, in case anyone wants to discuss:
https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-update-44-non-binary-companion-tanlorin-backlash-narrative-director-responds/

I find it has a few "interesting" passages, such as these:

a vocal subsect of the community has voiced outrage and spouted transphobic abuse, justifying their anger by saying that Tanlorin's inclusion is 'immersion breaking' and that they supposedly 'don't fit into the world of Elder Scrolls'.

Who is this "vocal subsect"? Has someone seen them in this forum? Sounds like a coordinated attack by some sinister group?

And that's not even mentioning alchemy, the three Living Gods of the Tribunal, or the Daedric Princes who can appear as any gender they so desire!

I'm not quite sure whether Almalexia and Sotha Sil are a good example for beings in the world being able to change their sex (Why don't so many people understand the difference between sex and gender, btw? Sex is the body, physical aspects. A gender is merely a social role with cultural expectations like some types of behaviour and clothing attached to it, so everyone and their dog could dress up differently and declare themselves to be a different gender from now on, there's nothing complicated about that)? I mean, there is indeed a symbolic depiction of pregnant Sotha Sil already from TES3 times (so much for TES3's interesting gender topics again), but that's no realistic depiction of a sex change, but a symbolic painting. If Vivec was meant, the text would say "Vivec" and not "the Living Gods of the Tribunal", no? (And it is even implied through that one dialogue with Sotha Sil that I screenshotted earlier that Vivec might not even be really able to do that).

Slavicsek stresses that designing a new character like Tanlorin is a team effort, and so he worked closely with VO lead Rebecca Ichnoski "to make sure we match actors to the characters they play very meticulously". And so, getting a non-binary actor to play the role of Tanlorin was "extremely important". Having that representation is likewise vital behind the scenes so as to authentically bring to life characters such as Tanlorin with care and intimacy.

Next time they better cast an elf to voice an elf, for the sake of authenticity! What, there are no elves? Well, looks like fantasy fiction has to be ended altogether then

But seriously: I'm just an old-fashioned and absolutely untrendy gay man, I know that, but I remember times (like 15 years ago or so) where acting was defined as "playing someone you are not".

So, despite all the fury that might be spilling out online, it was a no-brainer to take that a step further with an LGBTQ+ companion.

Oxford English dictionary tells me that "no-brainer" means "something that requires or involves little or no mental effort." Maybe using the brain would have helped in writing a story that makes sense.

colossalvoids

I guess they're forgetting the whole point of representation they're going for, it's not about going against someone or someone's views no matter if you're agreeing or not, if it's "bad or not". This should lead to normalisation, to make people more understanding, to evoke empathy at that. To serve the narrative at best. Not to tick a box, definitely not to make stereotypes into existence and not to make a subset of players displeased over it for any reason be it their opposing views, anger or their care for the subject matter making them even worse critics at that, as it actually matters to them, to exact people you're trying to represent with it.

Syldras

colossalvoids wrote: »

I guess they're forgetting the whole point of representation they're going for, it's not about going against someone or someone's views no matter if you're agreeing or not, if it's "bad or not". This should lead to normalisation, to make people more understanding, to evoke empathy at that. To serve the narrative at best. Not to tick a box, definitely not to make stereotypes into existence and not to make a subset of players displeased over it for any reason be it their opposing views, anger or their care for the subject matter making them even worse critics at that, as it actually matters to them, to exact people you're trying to represent with it.

What I see in the whole article is the ugly tendency of thinking in groups, a problem that is very common today. There is a belief that people fit into clearly defined identity groups (often for inborn characteristics like being gay - let's take that as an example) and that it would be possible to define representatives who speak for the whole group and define what the group likes, how they should be treated, how portrayal in media should look like, etc.

Of course having a speaker for a group of millions of people is nonsense in itself, because we are all individuals who have different opinions (plus a different cultural background that also very much shapes us and might also lead to different views). The problem is, in my opinion, even worsened by the fact that the "representatives" who are deciding they speak for the group are often people who are very much focussed on this identity, and who might therefore not be representative for the average person of that group at all. I've written it before: There is a difference about an avid activist whose whole life, privately and professionally, revolves around one single personality aspect, and the average person who just happens to be gay but mostly focusses on other aspects in life. Companies should keep in mind that their customers mostly aren't activists, but from the group of "average people".

What makes the whole thing even uglier is the fact that there's even a pressure by now to conform to the expectations to the group, and if you don't conform to the mainstream thinking of the group you're somehow weird, get strange accusations (like being anti-LGBT while being LGBT yourself), or even get othered/ousted from the group altogether. Which is a little ironic considering a part of Tanlorin's story is about being ousted from a community of people because of not conforming to their expectations.

I also think that the belief that people can be neatly seperated into different identity groups that are completely different from each other and weren't able to understand each other (so, for example, a gay character could only be played by a gay actor) doesn't lead to more understanding, tolerance and certainly not normalization, but to the absolute opposite: segregation. And segregation of humans based on inborn factors (like sex, sexual orientation or ethnicity) certainly is not freedom and progressiveness, but the opposite. No matter what they claim.

AlienSlof

Like someone else has said in this topic, it's more about the fact that they made a big hoo-ha about it: 'hey this character is non-binary!' bla bla. There are numerous LGBTwhatever characters already sprinkled thoughout the game, and they are all presented much more naturally without the fanfare that came with Tanlorin. I'm not a fan of the companion as it's been written - too flirty and a bit 'crazy teenager' for me, but the non-binary thing has never been the issue. I have 2 characters that are non-binary and quite gender fluid as it takes their fancy at the time. (I use the male template for mine though, so I can keep them flat-chested and do away with bras lol!)

wilykcat

As a biological female who identifies as non-binary, I say the lgbt representation in all video games is normal and im ok with it. I've seen everywhere especially on world of warcraft, overwatch, league of legends, guild wars 2, and eso. My opinion on this is "companies can do it if they want to or not, it's their game."

I can't speak more on these topics of lgbt representation as it is a controversial topic.

colossalvoids

Syldras wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

I guess they're forgetting the whole point of representation they're going for, it's not about going against someone or someone's views no matter if you're agreeing or not, if it's "bad or not". This should lead to normalisation, to make people more understanding, to evoke empathy at that. To serve the narrative at best. Not to tick a box, definitely not to make stereotypes into existence and not to make a subset of players displeased over it for any reason be it their opposing views, anger or their care for the subject matter making them even worse critics at that, as it actually matters to them, to exact people you're trying to represent with it.

What makes the whole thing even uglier is the fact that there's even a pressure by now to conform to the expectations to the group, and if you don't conform to the mainstream thinking of the group you're somehow weird, get strange accusations (like being anti-LGBT while being LGBT yourself), or even get othered/ousted from the group altogether. Which is a little ironic considering a part of Tanlorin's story is about being ousted from a community of people because of not conforming to their expectations.

I also think that the belief that people can be neatly seperated into different identity groups that are completely different from each other and weren't able to understand each other (so, for example, a gay character could only be played by a gay actor) doesn't lead to more understanding, tolerance and certainly not normalization, but to the absolute opposite: segregation. And segregation of humans based on inborn factors (like sex, sexual orientation or ethnicity) certainly is not freedom and progressiveness, but the opposite. No matter what they claim.

The first part is the issue in modern society in general I guess, more so in more progressive parts of the world like central europe and usa, kind of evident by fear people are having with sounding their views and opinions out of fear of rejection or being confronted, probably fear of confrontation all together as people are preferring illusion of unity to compromise ability having to except that people are indeed different, in any possible way, yet again good or not.

The second point is, indeed, on point. Clumsy attempts of inclusion from people who don't seem to actually care enough or care *too much* to the point that's a war for them where everyone is an enemy if having even a slightest issue with the work done. And those attempts can hurt more than doing any good.

colossalvoids

wilykcat wrote: »

As a biological female who identifies as non-binary, I say the lgbt representation in all video games is normal and im ok with it. I've seen everywhere especially on world of warcraft, overwatch, league of legends, guild wars 2, and eso. My opinion on this is "companies can do it if they want to or not, it's their game."

I can't speak more on these topics of lgbt representation as it is a controversial topic.

Don't think anyone has an issue with representation here, but people are voicing concerns about how it's done in particular, or on writing for the game in general.

I believe everyone can share their views on it without going "controversial". You can share if you like the current attempts from the company, or what you feel they've done good or not in that regard. Especially being someone who they're trying to represent, your experience with it have definitely way more weigh than mine, for example.

TheMajority

ok, about that article (my wife helping me translate my thoughts)

"We have mixed marriages and gay and lesbian characters in abundance throughout the game," Slavicsek tells TheGamer. "It just makes sense to us that all possibilities exist in Tamriel. We treat it as a real and living world. You just might not notice because we don't shout it from the rooftops or put signs proclaiming it everywhere. And you know why? Because in Tamriel, this is just the way the world is.

That's the point, and then you decided to not just shout, but scream it at the top of your lungs. And now your LGBTQ+ community feels like we are a game advertisement not people.

"No character in the world blinks an eye or thinks there's anything unusual about meeting the baker and his husband, the serving woman and her wife, or to have Naryu and Jakarn flirt with you, regardless of your character's gender. And that's not even mentioning alchemy, the three Living Gods of the Tribunal, or the Daedric Princes who can appear as any gender they so desire! It's part of the world and so it's no big deal."

Wow. Ok, so, I am really uncomfortable with this statement. Not because of the representation. You give me discomfort because you trying to speak for other character feelings with flirting. You are claiming that no-one in the world bats an eye at getting flirted at with by Naryu and Jakarn. But that's totally ignoring the ace and aromantic community who may be uncomfortable with that happening.

There's also people of other orientations and identities who could still feel discomfort from this too. Gosh, it's not ok to just say "no one blinks an eye at flirting".

I got no problem with the presence of the flirting, but there needs to be a "please stop flirting with me, I don't consent to this" button where the NPC backs off. Not everyone wants romantic attention from fictional characters.

Don't speak for me or the character I play ok?

spartaxoxo

A lot of people disliked Tanlorin before they ever were released. It's entirely predictable they don't like them now. The dev was right about the rhetoric around their release.

If Tanlorin is bad it has nothing to do with them being non-binary. The writing in ESO has been pretty mediocre since Blackwood. A character's minority status does not doesn't determine the quality of the story. Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw. Inclusion is never the reason a story is bad. A talented writer can decide to write a boy and it come out just fine, same with non-binary. There is no default gender. And making a decision on gender does not lead to writing a good or bad story. It's quite often that writing for straight, cisgender characters is bad. The difference is you won't get essays about how The Ascendant Lord being a man is the reason that High Isle was bad. Instead, it will be about things like recycling plots, as it should be.

Thin, shallow characters exist for the all the different demos, be it race, gender, or sexuality. It will be nice when minority characters are also allowed to be mediocre.

TaSheen

TheMajority wrote: »

"No character in the world blinks an eye or thinks there's anything unusual about meeting the baker and his husband, the serving woman and her wife, or to have Naryu and Jakarn flirt with you, regardless of your character's gender. And that's not even mentioning alchemy, the three Living Gods of the Tribunal, or the Daedric Princes who can appear as any gender they so desire! It's part of the world and so it's no big deal."

Wow. Ok, so, I am really uncomfortable with this statement. Not because of the representation. You give me discomfort because you trying to speak for other character feelings with flirting. You are claiming that no-one in the world bats an eye at getting flirted at with by Naryu and Jakarn. But that's totally ignoring the ace and aromantic community who may be uncomfortable with that happening.

There's also people of other orientations and identities who could still feel discomfort from this too. Gosh, it's not ok to just say "no one blinks an eye at flirting".

I got no problem with the presence of the flirting, but there needs to be a "please stop flirting with me, I don't consent to this" button where the NPC backs off. Not everyone wants romantic attention from fictional characters.

Don't speak for me or the character I play ok?

This! I DESPISE the flirting garbage. I don't want it going on at all with my girls. GET LOST, and get that stuff out of my (and my characters) face!

TheMajority

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A lot of people disliked Tanlorin before they ever were released. It's entirely predictable they don't like them now. If Tanlorin is bad it has nothing to do with them being non-binary. The writing in ESO has been pretty mediocre since Blackwood. A character's minority status does not doesn't determine the quality of the story. Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw. Inclusion is never the reason a story is bad. A talented writer can decide to write a boy and it come out just fine, same with non-binary. There is no default gender. And making a decision on gender does not lead to writing a good or bad story. It's quite often that writing for straight, cisgender characters is bad. The difference is you won't get essays about how The Ascendant Lord being a man is the reason that High Isle was bad. Instead, it will be about things like recycling plots, as it should be.

i think it becomes a problem when the minorities that the checkboxes are being checked for are being made to feel uncomfortable, unrepresented and voiceless because a character is being written as a stereotype first and not as a character. saying that LGBTQ+ people (which a ton of these posts are from) should not be concerned with that is like telling them that you don't want to see the lived experience and feelings. which is what a lot of us have been told all throughout our living.

inclusion done badly can be the reason a story is bad, because the people meant to feel included don't, and it's just as bad as not inclusion.

i have a belief that straight and cisgender individuals are also represented poorly in story telling and that it's a problem to always shove them into a certain dynamic thought of to be typical or "normal" so yeah, actually, a story can be bad because of that too. id welcome to have a unmoderated talk about that with all these these intelligent forum goers some time.

i don't wanna sound like i speak for every LGBTQ+ person cause i don't but everybody of every orientation is allowed to critic representation done badly

Syldras

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw.

How is Azandar a "checkbox character"? For his age, skin color or autism? Anyway, he doesn't feel like he was just created to check some box. That's what important.

SkaiFaith

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A lot of people disliked Tanlorin before they ever were released. It's entirely predictable they don't like them now. If Tanlorin is bad it has nothing to do with them being non-binary. The writing in ESO has been pretty mediocre since Blackwood. A character's minority status does not doesn't determine the quality of the story. Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw. Inclusion is never the reason a story is bad. A talented writer can decide to write a boy and it come out just fine, same with non-binary. There is no default gender. And making a decision on gender does not lead to writing a good or bad story. It's quite often that writing for straight, cisgender characters is bad. The difference is you won't get essays about how The Ascendant Lord being a man is the reason that High Isle was bad. Instead, it will be about things like recycling plots, as it should be.

Maybe I am misinterpreting, please correct me: do you mean people who expressed disappointment in this thread already didn't like Tanlorin in the first place? I ask to understand, I don't think you mean this... Because, I don't like card games and I have not touched ToT once until now. I don't think if someone really didn't like Tanlorin that hard would have played through all the questline and come here to express a discontent about the quality of what, it seems to me, they just hoped would have been done in a better way, giving constructive feedback to both writers and the company.

Personally I find worse that it seems like this valid feedback, coming from the exact people that should have appreciated this more, gets brushed off and not considered. But hopefully all these posts won't end up under a rug and our voices will help improve the future of the game and gaming industry.

You are definitely right: it's the quality of writing that needs to improve, and to achieve that is necessary a clear, focused mind.
I can't express myself further on this particular topic simply because my only experience with Tanlorin's story is through reading this thread since I am on console, but I feel like it is enough for me to decide I can skip it, just as I have skipped free dungeons as Daily Login rewards - there's nothing wrong in not liking something; no reason to get angry trying to negate the reasons why someone takes his decisions... (This last sentence is not referred to you, Sparta, I'm talking in general).

spartaxoxo

TheMajority wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A lot of people disliked Tanlorin before they ever were released. It's entirely predictable they don't like them now. If Tanlorin is bad it has nothing to do with them being non-binary. The writing in ESO has been pretty mediocre since Blackwood. A character's minority status does not doesn't determine the quality of the story. Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw. Inclusion is never the reason a story is bad. A talented writer can decide to write a boy and it come out just fine, same with non-binary. There is no default gender. And making a decision on gender does not lead to writing a good or bad story. It's quite often that writing for straight, cisgender characters is bad. The difference is you won't get essays about how The Ascendant Lord being a man is the reason that High Isle was bad. Instead, it will be about things like recycling plots, as it should be.

i think it becomes a problem when the minorities that the checkboxes are being checked for are being made to feel uncomfortable, unrepresented and voiceless because a character is being written as a stereotype first and not as a character. saying that LGBTQ+ people (which a ton of these posts are from) should not be concerned with that is like telling them that you don't want to see the lived experience and feelings. which is what a lot of us have been told all throughout our living.

inclusion done badly can be the reason a story is bad, because the people meant to feel included don't, and it's just as bad as not inclusion.

i have a belief that straight and cisgender individuals are also represented poorly in story telling and that it's a problem to always shove them into a certain dynamic thought of to be typical or "normal" so yeah, actually, a story can be bad because of that too. id welcome to have a unmoderated talk about that with all these these intelligent forum goers some time.

i don't wanna sound like i speak for every LGBTQ+ person cause i don't but everybody of every orientation is allowed to critic representation done badly

Sure. If a character is just a bad stereotype, that can suck. And if someone wants to call out a specific stereotype, that's perfectly fine.

But that's not what is happening when backlash against a character starts before anyone has even seen the character and knows nothing about the character except that it's a minority.

And even when a stereotypical writing is presen, it is not because they decided that character is a minority that it sucks. It sucks because the writer did not do their due diligence in ensuring authenticity and instead relied on stereotypes. Which is a dramatically different claim than saying things like real world identities don't belong in the Elder Scrolls, that non-binary characters should not be included, and that the character is bad because they made a decision to be inclusive. All of which was voiced before anyone had even gotten a chance to play Tanlorin's story.

And there exists prejudiced views towards non-binary people even within other types of people in the LGBT community.

ArchangelIsraphel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw.

I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking in regards to these two characters. Nothing about them was a blatant stereotype. They were original takes on individual people. They weren't written as advertisements for their various aspects. Those things were just a part of the whole.

Side note that Sharp's quest was one of the few that genuinely made me cry my eyes out, because he felt like a genuine individual suffering from trauma. Didn't feel a thing about Tanlorin, which really was a deep disappointment, because I wanted to feel a connection to them

TheMajority

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A lot of people disliked Tanlorin before they ever were released. It's entirely predictable they don't like them now. If Tanlorin is bad it has nothing to do with them being non-binary. The writing in ESO has been pretty mediocre since Blackwood. A character's minority status does not doesn't determine the quality of the story. Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw. Inclusion is never the reason a story is bad. A talented writer can decide to write a boy and it come out just fine, same with non-binary. There is no default gender. And making a decision on gender does not lead to writing a good or bad story. It's quite often that writing for straight, cisgender characters is bad. The difference is you won't get essays about how The Ascendant Lord being a man is the reason that High Isle was bad. Instead, it will be about things like recycling plots, as it should be.

i think it becomes a problem when the minorities that the checkboxes are being checked for are being made to feel uncomfortable, unrepresented and voiceless because a character is being written as a stereotype first and not as a character. saying that LGBTQ+ people (which a ton of these posts are from) should not be concerned with that is like telling them that you don't want to see the lived experience and feelings. which is what a lot of us have been told all throughout our living.

inclusion done badly can be the reason a story is bad, because the people meant to feel included don't, and it's just as bad as not inclusion.

i have a belief that straight and cisgender individuals are also represented poorly in story telling and that it's a problem to always shove them into a certain dynamic thought of to be typical or "normal" so yeah, actually, a story can be bad because of that too. id welcome to have a unmoderated talk about that with all these these intelligent forum goers some time.

i don't wanna sound like i speak for every LGBTQ+ person cause i don't but everybody of every orientation is allowed to critic representation done badly

Sure. If a character is just a bad stereotype, that can suck. And if someone wants to call out a specific stereotype, that's perfectly fine.

But that's not what is happening when backlash against a character starts before anyone has even seen the character and knows nothing about the character except that it's a minority.

And even when a stereotypical writing is presen, it is not because they decided that character is a minority that it sucks. It sucks because the writer did not do their due diligence in ensuring authenticity and instead relied on stereotypes. Which is a dramatically different claim than saying things like real world identities don't belong in the Elder Scrolls, that non-binary characters should not be included, and that the character is bad because they made a decision to be inclusive. All of which was voiced before anyone had even gotten a chance to play Tanlorin's story.

And there exists prejudiced views towards non-binary people even within other types of people in the LGBT community.

but that ain't what this thread is about? nobody here even said real world identities didn't belong in TES, we said do it better, and enhance it with the lore instead of making it feel like a photocopy of US based non-binary represent

this is a thread reviewing the quest after it's done, you're pulling in here stuff from before and from other threads, which nobody here was even saying?

spartaxoxo

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw.

I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking in regards to these two characters. Nothing about them was a blatant stereotype. They were original takes on individual people. They weren't written as advertisements for their various aspects. Those things were just a part of the whole.

Side note that Sharp's quest was one of the few that genuinely made me cry my eyes out, because he felt like a genuine individual suffering from trauma. Didn't feel a thing about Tanlorin, which really was a deep disappointment, because I wanted to feel a connection to them

They were created first and foremost with the idea they wanted a boy. They were created to fulfill a checkbox. They do have fantastic, non-stereotypical stories. Because the writer cared to do so.

The issue is never "we decided we wanted to make a character of x gender." The issue is always bad writing. The difference is that people understand this when it comes to characters that aren't minorities.

They can point to bad stereotypes such as "he's just a stupid Meathead with no depth" for a male example (not saying sharp or azandar are Meatheads) without saying "The problem with this character is that the authors just had to have a man. They are just checking boxes to pander to men." The same is not true for minority characters. If a minority characters is poorly written with thin stereotypes people blame the minority status and the minority audience. It's because they wanted to pander to us and decided to include a minority, not because the writer phoned it in with a wooden character.

And I have seen this type of rhetoric constantly from preview images and trailers, before literally anything else is known about the character. The same thing happened with Tanlorin. There were videos calling Elder Scrolls woke and DEI and a post calling Tanlorin garbage before the PTS even launched. Using all the same buzzwords and rhetoric.

Soarora

TheMajority wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A lot of people disliked Tanlorin before they ever were released. It's entirely predictable they don't like them now. If Tanlorin is bad it has nothing to do with them being non-binary. The writing in ESO has been pretty mediocre since Blackwood. A character's minority status does not doesn't determine the quality of the story. Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw. Inclusion is never the reason a story is bad. A talented writer can decide to write a boy and it come out just fine, same with non-binary. There is no default gender. And making a decision on gender does not lead to writing a good or bad story. It's quite often that writing for straight, cisgender characters is bad. The difference is you won't get essays about how The Ascendant Lord being a man is the reason that High Isle was bad. Instead, it will be about things like recycling plots, as it should be.

i think it becomes a problem when the minorities that the checkboxes are being checked for are being made to feel uncomfortable, unrepresented and voiceless because a character is being written as a stereotype first and not as a character. saying that LGBTQ+ people (which a ton of these posts are from) should not be concerned with that is like telling them that you don't want to see the lived experience and feelings. which is what a lot of us have been told all throughout our living.

inclusion done badly can be the reason a story is bad, because the people meant to feel included don't, and it's just as bad as not inclusion.

i have a belief that straight and cisgender individuals are also represented poorly in story telling and that it's a problem to always shove them into a certain dynamic thought of to be typical or "normal" so yeah, actually, a story can be bad because of that too. id welcome to have a unmoderated talk about that with all these these intelligent forum goers some time.

i don't wanna sound like i speak for every LGBTQ+ person cause i don't but everybody of every orientation is allowed to critic representation done badly

Sure. If a character is just a bad stereotype, that can suck. And if someone wants to call out a specific stereotype, that's perfectly fine.

But that's not what is happening when backlash against a character starts before anyone has even seen the character and knows nothing about the character except that it's a minority.

And even when a stereotypical writing is presen, it is not because they decided that character is a minority that it sucks. It sucks because the writer did not do their due diligence in ensuring authenticity and instead relied on stereotypes. Which is a dramatically different claim than saying things like real world identities don't belong in the Elder Scrolls, that non-binary characters should not be included, and that the character is bad because they made a decision to be inclusive. All of which was voiced before anyone had even gotten a chance to play Tanlorin's story.

And there exists prejudiced views towards non-binary people even within other types of people in the LGBT community.

but that ain't what this thread is about? nobody here even said real world identities didn't belong in TES, we said do it better, and enhance it with the lore instead of making it feel like a photocopy of US based non-binary represent

this is a thread reviewing the quest after it's done, you're pulling in here stuff from before and from other threads, which nobody here was even saying?

I also want to add that while plenty of people don’t like the character for being nonbinary, there’s also a problem with revealing them as “this is our new >>>> NONBINARY <<<< companion! >>>THEY<<< are >>>>NONBINARY<<<< !!!!” People are more than their gender, and eso already has a reputation as having really good representation. They didn’t need to prove anything by making the character’s gender a selling point. It actually would’ve proved a better point if they didn’t make it a selling point and just let it be a casual thing that happens like all of the other representation that people know and love in eso.
This is unfortunately not the first time, we had zos talk about Jakarn being pansexual as a selling point as well. It’s a concerning development because by trying to be too much of a vocal ally, zos might actually start losing their quality of representation, ending up with the mainstream representation of “look, we added a gay man! He’s gay! That’s his only personality trait.”

Syldras

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They were created first and foremost with the idea they wanted a boy. They were created to fulfill a checkbox. They do have fantastic, non-stereotypical stories. Because the writer cared to do so.
The issue is never "we decided we wanted to make a character of x gender." The issue is always bad writing. The difference is that people understand this when it comes to characters that aren't minorities.

The big difference is that, while it is true that we got two male companions after there had been criticism about getting two female companions the year before (instead of 1 male, 1 female), neither Sharp nor Azandar are introduced as representatives of their sex. They are not in the game to show the audience how a man behaves (Yes, indeed this has to do with cis men not being a minority, but roughly 50% of population - although we could argue we don't even know whether Azandar and Sharp are even cis, and we don't know about their sexual orientation either). There are no men who have to fear that a badly written Azandar might harm their reputation as a man by evoking strange ideas about men for non-male players. This is the case though when it comes to minorities. A bad depiction about someone announced to be a depiction of us can harm us.

ArchangelIsraphel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw.

I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking in regards to these two characters. Nothing about them was a blatant stereotype. They were original takes on individual people. They weren't written as advertisements for their various aspects. Those things were just a part of the whole.

Side note that Sharp's quest was one of the few that genuinely made me cry my eyes out, because he felt like a genuine individual suffering from trauma. Didn't feel a thing about Tanlorin, which really was a deep disappointment, because I wanted to feel a connection to them

They were created first and foremost with the idea they wanted a boy. They were created to fulfill a checkbox. They do have fantastic, non-stereotypical stories. Because the writer cared to do so.

The issue is never "we decided we wanted to make a character of x gender." The issue is always bad writing. The difference is that people understand this when it comes to characters that aren't minorities.

They can point to bad stereotypes such as "he's just a stupid Meathead with no depth" for a male example (not saying sharp or azandar are Meatheads) without saying "The problem with this character is that the authors just had to have a man. They are just checking boxes to pander to men." The same is not true for minority characters. If a minority characters is poorly written with thin stereotypes people blame the minority status and the minority audience. It's because they wanted to pander to us and decided to include a minority, not because the writer phoned it in with a wooden character.

And I have seen this type of rhetoric constantly from preview images and trailers, before literally anything else is known about the character. The same thing happened with Tanlorin. There were videos calling Elder Scrolls woke and DEI and a post calling Tanlorin garbage before the PTS even launched. Using all the same buzzwords and rhetoric.

I mean, I'm not denying that these things definitely happened before Tanlorin was released, because I saw a lot of it in spite of being away from the game and the forums for a while, but there was also valid criticism from concerned members of the LGBTQ+ community as well.

Admittedly, I'm also quite confused by the fact that you continue to reiterate that people are blaming the minorities and the minority audiences, when that hasn't happened at all within this thread, to my knowledge, unless I missed something early on. I don't think that's the OP's intention either. Or are you just justifying the opinions held within the article? Genuinely trying to understand your perspective and where it's coming from.

The reviews here really are not blaming the fact that Tanlorin is non-binary, they are blaming the wooden, stereotyped writing. Some of us are also really concerned that homophobia and transphobia is getting introduced into the game as a plot device, albeit metaphorically, when such things did not previously exist in this universe, and we don't want to be faced with that in a game world where we feel safe, and welcomed. (I don't want to speak for every ones feelings, either, but this has been a common sentiment throughout the thread.)

spartaxoxo

Soarora wrote: »

I also want to add that while plenty of people don’t like the character for being nonbinary, there’s also a problem with revealing them as “this is our new >>>> NONBINARY <<<< companion! >>>THEY<<< are >>>>NONBINARY<<<< !!!!” People are more than their gender, and eso already has a reputation as having really good representation.

Every companion's gender was revealed ahead of time. They not only let us know in stream that Azandar and Sharp were men, but they also made a separate post about how those two were men to address feedback about gender inclusivity.

Tanlorin would have been the only companion to not have that information provided ahead of time if they hadn't. The only way to treat Tanlorin equally was to inform people ahead of time the same way they did every other companion. And it makes sense to say it first so people understand the pronouns easier.

spartaxoxo

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw.

I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking in regards to these two characters. Nothing about them was a blatant stereotype. They were original takes on individual people. They weren't written as advertisements for their various aspects. Those things were just a part of the whole.

Side note that Sharp's quest was one of the few that genuinely made me cry my eyes out, because he felt like a genuine individual suffering from trauma. Didn't feel a thing about Tanlorin, which really was a deep disappointment, because I wanted to feel a connection to them

They were created first and foremost with the idea they wanted a boy. They were created to fulfill a checkbox. They do have fantastic, non-stereotypical stories. Because the writer cared to do so.

The issue is never "we decided we wanted to make a character of x gender." The issue is always bad writing. The difference is that people understand this when it comes to characters that aren't minorities.

They can point to bad stereotypes such as "he's just a stupid Meathead with no depth" for a male example (not saying sharp or azandar are Meatheads) without saying "The problem with this character is that the authors just had to have a man. They are just checking boxes to pander to men." The same is not true for minority characters. If a minority characters is poorly written with thin stereotypes people blame the minority status and the minority audience. It's because they wanted to pander to us and decided to include a minority, not because the writer phoned it in with a wooden character.

And I have seen this type of rhetoric constantly from preview images and trailers, before literally anything else is known about the character. The same thing happened with Tanlorin. There were videos calling Elder Scrolls woke and DEI and a post calling Tanlorin garbage before the PTS even launched. Using all the same buzzwords and rhetoric.

I mean, I'm not denying that these things definitely happened before Tanlorin was released, because I saw a lot of it in spite of being away from the game and the forums for a while, but there was also valid criticism from concerned members of the LGBTQ+ community as well.

Admittedly, I'm also quite confused by the fact that you continue to reiterate that people are blaming the minorities and the minority audiences, when that hasn't happened at all within this thread, to my knowledge, unless I missed something early on. I don't think that's the OP's intention either. Or are you just justifying the opinions held within the article? Genuinely trying to understand your perspective and where it's coming from.

The reviews here really are not blaming the fact that Tanlorin is non-binary, they are blaming the wooden, stereotyped writing. Some of us are also really concerned that homophobia and transphobia is getting introduced into the game as a plot device, albeit metaphorically, when such things did not previously exist in this universe, and we don't want to be faced with that in a game world where we feel safe, and welcomed. (I don't want to speak for every ones feelings, either, but this has been a common sentiment throughout the thread.)

I am mostly focused on the sentiment dismissing what the developer had to say in the article. Everything the developer said was legitimate and there was a lot of backlash against Tanlorin for being non-binary.

Edit

I am also criticizing the checkbox rhetoric because it is a common buzzword that needs to be called out for what it is, which is a way to dismiss minority characters and audiences. The reason a character is good or bad has nothing to do with minority audiences or the decision to be inclusive. It has to do with bad writing techniques that plague other characters too.

There are other valid criticisms of Tanlorin that I am purposely staying out of as I'm not non-binary or LGBT. I understand the issue with stereotypes and don't disagree there.

PrincessOfThieves

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A lot of people disliked Tanlorin before they ever were released. It's entirely predictable they don't like them now. The dev was right about the rhetoric around their release.

If Tanlorin is bad it has nothing to do with them being non-binary. The writing in ESO has been pretty mediocre since Blackwood. A character's minority status does not doesn't determine the quality of the story. Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw. Inclusion is never the reason a story is bad. A talented writer can decide to write a boy and it come out just fine, same with non-binary. There is no default gender. And making a decision on gender does not lead to writing a good or bad story. It's quite often that writing for straight, cisgender characters is bad. The difference is you won't get essays about how The Ascendant Lord being a man is the reason that High Isle was bad. Instead, it will be about things like recycling plots, as it should be.

Thin, shallow characters exist for the all the different demos, be it race, gender, or sexuality. It will be nice when minority characters are also allowed to be mediocre.

You know, Sharp is my main companion, but I would be really weirded out if he was marketed as "our first SA survivor companion". It's all about context.
And people did actually criticize High Isle story and the Ascendant Lord? I know I did and I remember threads about it, both here and on reddit. The lackluster and predictable main villain reveal was a big point of discussions back when High Isle was released.
Yes, Tanlorin can be a mediocre character and not everyone's cup of tea. They don't have to be perfect and infallible. But they do not exist in vacuum. Things like marketing chars as their genders/sexual preferences and then writing off any critique as simple bigotry gives power to actual bigots. They can always point at something like aforementioned article and say "see, we are right!". That is the danger of using modern political themes in a game, even with good intentions.
And btw, I don't mean Tanlorin's gender as "political". It's only about the initial presentation being weird+the idea that 2 afab characters somehow cannot be together in the world of Tamriel+some other things, such as Sunhold suddenly shifting from a city that we need to save to an authoritarian craphole. This is really weird considering that TESO has an excellent track record when it comes to LGBTQ+ themes. We already had some nonbinary characters such as Frii and Cres/Dreamer, just to name a few.
There is nothing wrong with people liking or disliking certain characters and writing essays about them. Isn't that why we are here? As long as people keep the discussion civil, there is no reason not to discuss the game we are all passionate about.

ArchangelIsraphel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sharp and Azandar were "checkbox" characters too, btw.

I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking in regards to these two characters. Nothing about them was a blatant stereotype. They were original takes on individual people. They weren't written as advertisements for their various aspects. Those things were just a part of the whole.

Side note that Sharp's quest was one of the few that genuinely made me cry my eyes out, because he felt like a genuine individual suffering from trauma. Didn't feel a thing about Tanlorin, which really was a deep disappointment, because I wanted to feel a connection to them

They were created first and foremost with the idea they wanted a boy. They were created to fulfill a checkbox. They do have fantastic, non-stereotypical stories. Because the writer cared to do so.

The issue is never "we decided we wanted to make a character of x gender." The issue is always bad writing. The difference is that people understand this when it comes to characters that aren't minorities.

They can point to bad stereotypes such as "he's just a stupid Meathead with no depth" for a male example (not saying sharp or azandar are Meatheads) without saying "The problem with this character is that the authors just had to have a man. They are just checking boxes to pander to men." The same is not true for minority characters. If a minority characters is poorly written with thin stereotypes people blame the minority status and the minority audience. It's because they wanted to pander to us and decided to include a minority, not because the writer phoned it in with a wooden character.

And I have seen this type of rhetoric constantly from preview images and trailers, before literally anything else is known about the character. The same thing happened with Tanlorin. There were videos calling Elder Scrolls woke and DEI and a post calling Tanlorin garbage before the PTS even launched. Using all the same buzzwords and rhetoric.

I mean, I'm not denying that these things definitely happened before Tanlorin was released, because I saw a lot of it in spite of being away from the game and the forums for a while, but there was also valid criticism from concerned members of the LGBTQ+ community as well.

Admittedly, I'm also quite confused by the fact that you continue to reiterate that people are blaming the minorities and the minority audiences, when that hasn't happened at all within this thread, to my knowledge, unless I missed something early on. I don't think that's the OP's intention either. Or are you just justifying the opinions held within the article? Genuinely trying to understand your perspective and where it's coming from.

The reviews here really are not blaming the fact that Tanlorin is non-binary, they are blaming the wooden, stereotyped writing. Some of us are also really concerned that homophobia and transphobia is getting introduced into the game as a plot device, albeit metaphorically, when such things did not previously exist in this universe, and we don't want to be faced with that in a game world where we feel safe, and welcomed. (I don't want to speak for every ones feelings, either, but this has been a common sentiment throughout the thread.)

I am mostly focused on the sentiment dismissing what the developer had to say in the article. Everything the developer said was legitimate and there was a lot of backlash against Tanlorin for being non-binary.

I don't think it's being dismissed, I think that it's important that it be reviewed and discussed by the people the article purports to speak for, because we are a varied and eclectic group. All of us have a wide variety of opinions that don't necessarily align, even when it comes to how we should stand up for ourselves. The dev's alone cannot know what represents all of us, or what we all believe and feel in regards to those that speak negatively about us. Some of us are very saddened by the notion that Tanlorin feels like they are being put in place as a weapon against the opposition, rather than being put in place for us to love and cherish as an individual.