The writing for the upcoming story content - some thoughts on the latest news article

JemadarofCaerSalis

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I think one problem is that it's hard to make sense how anyone except for Mannimarco (and maybe close allies to him who might be promised reigning at his side) would support the Planemeld. Who would profit from merging Coldharbour and Nirn? A trader interested in rare materials from Coldharbour (make up some stuff about Chaotic Creatia or whatever) would not benefit from it if everthing becomes Coldharbour - or everyone's dead, so there's no one to sell it to. Can't even make up a cheesy story about someone needing a door to Coldharbour to free a loved one from there - in the end, how does it matter, if your homeland also became coldharbourized and everything is just as bad? No, I think to make sense of it, there would need to be some new lore. And most of all, someone willing to take the hassle to write it

For me, I could easily see masses joining the worm cult, even with the planemeld.

Look at how people will join groups and cults today. The same reasonings can be applied here as well.

1. They want to belong. This is a very simple one, and typically would be used for the, shall we say less intelligent ones. They just want a group to belong to, and they don't mind or even like the violence associated with it.
2. They think they are going to be in power in some way after the planemeld. They think that the planemeld is going to affect everyone BUT them, so they will be in positions of power. These types of people often are of the belief that, because they are 'of the chosen few', they will be exempt from whatever negative things happen as a result.
3. They think joining the worm cult is the fastest way to get what they want, whether it is becoming a necromancer, or lich or whatever, and so they are just planning on using it as a stepping stone.
4. They love violence and so would join any group that allowed them free reign to be as violent as possible.
5. An offshot of 4, they just don't care what is going to happen tomorrow, as long as they get to have their 'fun' today.

Most of these types of people either don't think about the future, or they think they are going to be exempt from the consequences. A small subset probably even welcomes the planemeld.

I don't think it would be much about profit, as you said, who could profit really, but more about personal pleasures and taking what they want in the time they have. But even then, I could see some traders thinking that they could be 'in on the ground floor' of things when they get rebuilt after the planemeld. IE, a combo of them expecting that they would be exempt from being killed when planemeld happens, and thus being able to set themselves up for whatever beings start inhabiting the realms again. They would have a monopoly on pretty much anything, because everyone else would be too busy trying to survive.

Whether it is realistic that there WOULD be rebuilding after the planemeld is a different story, because most of these types of people don't think that far ahead. Again, they are only thinking about themselves and how they can personally take advantage of the situation and dont' stop to think 'what if this doesn't happen?'

Basically, I see most of the people who join the worm cult as being not very intelligent, or only concerned about their desires. They either don't think about the planemeld as actually happening, or they somehow think they can jockey enough favor to be exempt from it when the time comes.

You make some good points about why people join, and I agree that there are people who would fall into those categories. I think where it falls apart a bit for me is just how many people join. The Worm Cult seems to have no end of personnel to station about Tamriel, all of whom perform in lock-step with the ideology.

Someone mentioned Aera Earth-Turner, and she's a good example of showing us why someone would end up joining. We know her from the beginning and it's not a stretch to understand why she went the way she did. Her story resonates for me because it's specific and somewhat realistic. If they can add more story beats like that, I think it would help. But cultist after cultist after cultist just being whole-heartedly in it for "reasons" makes it harder for me to be interested.

I think that there would be a pretty much never ending supply of these types of people.

For one, think about the time period Tamriel is supposed to take place. There isn't a lot of upward movement, not unless you are one of the lucky few (and remember, the people we see are technically a fraction of the amount of people there *should* be in this world) who managed to luck out, so people who are stuck being a farmer or who can't manage to follow their parents' footsteps would be the most likely people I can see who would fall for this type of ideology.

Then you add that many places are war torn, which means people out of jobs because the farms have been destroyed, or the towns are just no longer there, or occupied. (and just replace farm/farming with pretty much any job) You have cases where people who were once slaves needing to be okay with being in the same alliance as their slavers, you have the Altmer who tend to come in with a high and mighty attitude, and all the other various forms of tension within each of the alliances, and everyone is supposed to be okay with that.

They also don't have a lot of ways to be 'social'. If someone doesn't really fit in at the local tavern, there aren't a lot of other groups, and no real way for them to travel to a different tavern or city to find a group they do fit in. So, when people go through town talking about a group that wants them, they join and think about the consequences later or never. Especially if that group talks about being able to travel or meet like minded people, or giving them the power to fight back against those they percieve as 'wronging them'.

That tends to alienate people and make joining cults and groups like that appealing. Because they see it as their way to fight back.

When you add in, again, that the people we see in the towns and zones are a fraction of the number of people who *should* exist in such a world, that allows for a great many people to be split off into the various groups, both against us and with us.

Now, the constant parade of enemies in places like delves, is sadly an issue more with it being a game rather than something in reality. (if that makes sense) It isn't really realistic that I go through, kill off the people in the delve, and as I am leaving, I run into more people standing over the bodies of their comrades. it is the same issue in town when someone goes around with a blade of woe. You can see people standing over their own bodies, sometimes two or three times over, depending on how fast they respawn and how often they are killed.

I agree that there are probably a lot of desperate/lost/vulnerable people in Tamriel, but I don't see them all joining the Worm Cult. I think they'd be far more likely to join the local bandit gang and hang out in the local delve, because that's a clearer path to them: steal, fence, buy food/clothes/whatever, remain close to home. While I've never heard the Worm Cult's pitch, so to speak, I have a hard time thinking the average Tamriel citizen going through hard times is going to be so quickly swayed to "let's just end the world."

When I think of the Worm Cult's numbers, I'm not thinking of the gameplay aspect of it with the respawn and the crowds of them placed in their hideouts to facilitate the "kill 10" quests that people need to do. I'm thinking of just the vast number of places they can be found. They have a sect of goons everywhere, and even if, canonically, that sect contains only ten people total, that's still a lot overall.

There's three anchors per zone, five zones per alliance, and three alliances. Forty-five dark anchors across the landscape (not counting Cyrodiil) and at each anchor, ten cultists to summon a sacrifice to open it (I think it's ten; could be more or fewer; honestly, I've never actually counted them, just mowed them down). Even if we say that each anchor is canonically only activated once, that's still 450 disposable cultists. That's quite a lot for a cult to lose and still be functioning everywhere else they are. That then makes me wonder if the high likelihood of death if you join the Worm Cult would make people hesitate to do it. It just seems to me that, by now, people would have figured out the Worm Cult isn't quite the answer it might have once seemed.

I mean, if you think about it, a cult on the scale that the worm cult is, would have a lot.

It isn't so much that they would all be joining the worm cult, because they wouldn't, but rather just the sheer number of people that we simply don't see at all.

IE, I would imagine that each zone, if you consider that many contain one large city with all the amenities, and many contain at least one smaller city, should at least have hundreds of thousands of people. If I did the math right, even at only 100,000 people per zone, Even if only 1% of those are the type to join a cult like the worm cult, that is still 1000 people to split up between the various factions.

Doing a bit of research it doesn't seem like there have been any true estimates for population given (only people theorizing based upon real world counterparts), but the few numbers I have seen thrown out would support that there would potentially be a a lot of people per province. I saw someone say that Daggerfall, in the third era, was given a population of 110,000 people, I don't know whether it would be higher or lower in ESO's time (didn't do that much of a deep dive to try to figure it out).

So, I do feel that there would be easily enough population to fill out the rank and file of the worm cult, even at 450 cultists at the dolmens.

Sadly, and again this is from real world people, many people have the 'it won't happen to me' 'I am smarter than the people who joined before' or 'We will do it differently' mentality, which means they are perfectly willing to keep doing the same things over and over again despite it not working out. Because they think the outcome will be different.

You also have to take into account the religious fanaticism that the worm cult seems to have. They aren't religious per se, but many of the cultists at the dolmen at least, seem to worship Molag Bal. That means that many are willing to sacrifice their own life, because they often believe that the next one will be better, or they will be given a reward after death, etc...

Basically, just looking at Earth's history, there always seems to be plenty of people willing to risk their own lives for a cause they believe in, no matter what that cause is, and plenty of people who can somehow completely ignore precedents with regards to these causes.

I see what you're saying in regards to the general mentality of people not learning from past mistakes and history. People can be swayed to believe anything, in the right circumstances. But I also think people in general have a strong sense of self-preservation, and the high mortality rate of the Worm Cult would turn them off. By this time, it must be clear to people that those who join the Worm Cult don't end up well, which I think would hamper their recruitment efforts.

However, regardless of how many people there are in Tamriel and what percentage of them is likely to join a cult, much less the Worm Cult, the story we are presented with seems to not have much nuance to it. The article mentioned something like evil just for the sake of evil, and I just don't find that a very compelling storyline. Considering my character beat back the Worm Cult and dealt with Mannimarco, I'd really like to know who or what is giving the renewed Worm Cult the idea that this time it'll work out.

One of the things to take into account with the ES universe is the lack of communication. People from daggerfall wouldn't necessarily realize that the worm cult members from Windhelm are dying in droves, at least not until some time after.

And, there is still that 'it won't happen to me mentality'. Just look up statistics for things like texting and driving or drinking and driving. There are a great many people who do it (at least in the US), despite it being known that it can end badly, and is the cause of a great many fatalities. People still do it because they believe that they can do better, or it simply won't happen to them.

In the case of the worm cult, it could simply be that the people joining think they are better at fighting/magic than the people who came before.

That said, I do agree with you. My tolerance for 'evil for evil's sake' is a bit higher, but it often just goes wrong because they make them too over the top evil. It just comes across as cartoony.

I also agree with nuance. Sadly, nuance seems to be dying fast. There is a certain portion of the population that can't handle any bit of ambiguity/nuance in a story. If they feel that something is bad, it must be presented as 100% bad, no matter what. There can be no grey areas, no 'this person did a bad thing but ultimately is good'.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

One of the things to take into account with the ES universe is the lack of communication. People from daggerfall wouldn't necessarily realize that the worm cult members from Windhelm are dying in droves, at least not until some time after.

If I had a cult (or any other kind of secret organization) I would consider that and employ some kind of emergency system. Some way to inform other chapters (or how ever to call it) that there was an attack. Since almost everyone except for the player character can open portals, it would make sense to assign that job to a few portal mages who would, in case of emergency, flee and warn others. Maybe not all of them would survive, but one would be sufficient to spread the news.

Another thing I've been thinking about (one of several, but I've already forgotten the rest ) is that we don't know what the cult promises to its members. Cults often functioned with some "but in the afterlife, you'll be rewarded and get this and that" promise. Maybe in case of the Wormcult it's something "plausible" - if you believe in that nonsense. But then I'd like to see that in game: Worm cultists talking about what they think awaits them. Not necessarily towards the player character, but it could be included in the background chatter that you sometimes hear enemies talk about if you get close enough without being detected.

metheglyn

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

One of the things to take into account with the ES universe is the lack of communication. People from daggerfall wouldn't necessarily realize that the worm cult members from Windhelm are dying in droves, at least not until some time after.

And, there is still that 'it won't happen to me mentality'. Just look up statistics for things like texting and driving or drinking and driving. There are a great many people who do it (at least in the US), despite it being known that it can end badly, and is the cause of a great many fatalities. People still do it because they believe that they can do better, or it simply won't happen to them.

In the case of the worm cult, it could simply be that the people joining think they are better at fighting/magic than the people who came before.

That said, I do agree with you. My tolerance for 'evil for evil's sake' is a bit higher, but it often just goes wrong because they make them too over the top evil. It just comes across as cartoony.

I also agree with nuance. Sadly, nuance seems to be dying fast. There is a certain portion of the population that can't handle any bit of ambiguity/nuance in a story. If they feel that something is bad, it must be presented as 100% bad, no matter what. There can be no grey areas, no 'this person did a bad thing but ultimately is good'.

Considering that everyone everywhere I go knows what my character has been up to, I think Tamriel has a rather robust communication/gossip network.

Also, as a side note, I'm not sure exactly how long after the initial main story this one is meant to take place. Has there been time for the cult's defeat to get around? Do people in general know that Mannimarco is 'elsewhere'?

But yeah, my main problem isn't necessarily how many people join the cult (because for gameplay sake I just have to accept that they're really into it) but the overall presentation of the story.

Syldras wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

Considering my character beat back the Worm Cult and dealt with Mannimarco, I'd really like to know who or what is giving the renewed Worm Cult the idea that this time it'll work out.

The only thing I could imagine that would make sense would be if the story was about close confidents of Mannimarco trying to bring him back. Or maybe he had a plan B from the beginning and his underlings now go for that. Which would be a more interesting story than just repeating the original story again.

I could easily believe Mannimarco had plans B through Z, but not entirely sure he would share those with others. But, in the tradition of ESO villains, he probably wrote them down and left them out where anyone could stumble across them.

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

One of the things to take into account with the ES universe is the lack of communication. People from daggerfall wouldn't necessarily realize that the worm cult members from Windhelm are dying in droves, at least not until some time after.

If I had a cult (or any other kind of secret organization) I would consider that and employ some kind of emergency system. Some way to inform other chapters (or how ever to call it) that there was an attack. Since almost everyone except for the player character can open portals, it would make sense to assign that job to a few portal mages who would, in case of emergency, flee and warn others. Maybe not all of them would survive, but one would be sufficient to spread the news.

Another thing I've been thinking about (one of several, but I've already forgotten the rest ) is that we don't know what the cult promises to its members. Cults often functioned with some "but in the afterlife, you'll be rewarded and get this and that" promise. Maybe in case of the Wormcult it's something "plausible" - if you believe in that nonsense. But then I'd like to see that in game: Worm cultists talking about what they think awaits them. Not necessarily towards the player character, but it could be included in the background chatter that you sometimes hear enemies talk about if you get close enough without being detected.

I think that background chatter is a good idea. You can hear some interesting, sometimes funny bits that way. I've been in delves/public dungeons and heard the npcs chatting it up and one of the lines that stuck with me was: "Everyone has their price, and mine is five gold." Not only did I think that was a pretty low amount, it made me wish I could say to that person, "Hey, here's ten gold; why don't you just go ahead and leave this place."

katanagirl1

Northwold wrote: »

I can't stand most of the daedric princes because they're cartoon characters, as others have said in various ways.

But part of the problem here is the way the lore of the early Elder Scrolls games was essentially sketched out on the back of a napkin. If memory serves the Khajiit started out as a race of pole dancers, basically, in Arena.

This has then carried over into concepts like Peryite. Peryite is a stupid concept. A prince who, in any realistic world, no one would follow, but is supposed to have followers so the writers have felt obliged to make it work despite having to come up with the most forced, contrived nonsense to get there. As storytelling, it feels just bad and awkward, because no credible explanation is ever put forward for why people would behave this way.

I have to say, on the worm cult I have literally no idea who they are and what their purpose is, because I found the story so by-the-numbers in setting them up that I stopped paying any attention. So, yeah, villains who are irredeemably evil aren't really for me. Molag Bal is a suffocating bore. Even in Biblical terms the devil has a back story.

I thought the quest inside Orcrest in Elsweyr was a good story about why someone would follow Peryite. This guy who was a nobody got sick and suddenly people were concerned about him because they thought he would die, but then he survived. So he’s a big fan of Peryite because it sort of changed his life for the better in a strange way.

Syldras

metheglyn wrote: »

Also, as a side note, I'm not sure exactly how long after the initial main story this one is meant to take place. Has there been time for the cult's defeat to get around? Do people in general know that Mannimarco is 'elsewhere'?

Unfortunately, I can't really remember right now what the dialogues in the prologue said. Did they say it was a decade or just some unspecified long time?

Although in a way it doesn't all make much sense anyway, since the dark anchors are still dropping everywhere, and they will still keep dropping in another 10 years, I guess.

metheglyn wrote: »

I could easily believe Mannimarco had plans B through Z, but not entirely sure he would share those with others.

I'm not completely certain about that. It could be that he just told them "In case I ever disappear, do this", without even giving further info what chain of events that will cause. On the other hand, allowing the idea that he could fail or even just get in danger could deflate his image as the big, invincible leader, and make his followers doubt the whole cause. So strategically, it could be something that would better be avoided.

metheglyn wrote: »

I think that background chatter is a good idea. You can hear some interesting, sometimes funny bits that way.

I always stumble across bandits drinking from the cauldron in which another was just doing his laundry.

metheglyn

Syldras wrote: »

Unfortunately, I can't really remember right now what the dialogues in the prologue said. Did they say it was a decade or just some unspecified long time?

I don't remember if it was specified, either. I'll have to run another character through it and see if they mention it.

Syldras wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

I could easily believe Mannimarco had plans B through Z, but not entirely sure he would share those with others.

I'm not completely certain about that. It could be that he just told them "In case I ever disappear, do this", without even giving further info what chain of events that will cause. On the other hand, allowing the idea that he could fail or even just get in danger could deflate his image as the big, invincible leader, and make his followers doubt the whole cause. So strategically, it could be something that would better be avoided.

From all I've learned of him in game, Mannimarco actually thinks he's infallible. Tharn mocks him for thinking he could out-scheme the god of schemes, but it always seemed to me that Mannimarco never doubted himself for a moment. Would he have plans within plans, or just one master plan that he was sure would execute flawlessly? I could see it going either way. I don't recall how Tharn picked up on Mannimarco's 'ascend to godhood' plan, but I don't think it was because Mannimarco confided in him.

Syldras wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

I think that background chatter is a good idea. You can hear some interesting, sometimes funny bits that way.

I always stumble across bandits drinking from the cauldron in which another was just doing his laundry.

Haha, that's a good one! I've heard some loose talk among bandits disparaging another bandit's ability at gambling, but can't remember the exact wording of it.

Pevey

Soarora wrote: »

Necrom/Gold Road is just strange. ZOS tried to write morally grey characters but just made a character that felt like the good guy, so then I felt like the bad guy…
Conceptually, everyone being morally grey is interesting. In practice, I wasn’t clear as to why I needed to be against these people and it didn’t actually add any depth.

I got the sense that Necrom/Gold Road (especially Gold Road) was meant to be allegory about determinism vs free will within the Elder Scrolls universe. I thought the execution was not great. It maybe needed to be a bit more fleshed out. But I liked that they tried something a bit different.

Syldras

Pevey wrote: »

I got the sense that Necrom/Gold Road (especially Gold Road) was meant to be an allegory about determinism vs free will.

And I suspected they just wanted to do something with the "parallel universe" trope that was very popular in movies at that time

Pevey

Syldras wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

I got the sense that Necrom/Gold Road (especially Gold Road) was meant to be an allegory about determinism vs free will.

And I suspected they just wanted to do something with the "parallel universe" trope that was very popular in movies at that time

Probably also that.

It's been a while, but from memory... There are a lot of lines that talk about fate. And that Ithelia represents a threat because of the possibility of different paths, i.e., veering away from fate. Chaos. So, essentially, free will. That is what I took away at least. There were enough hints at this in the dialogue that I felt like it was probably an intended theme. Something about the story still did not resonate with me. But I appreciated the effort at some theme besides just "evil cult."

Pevey

If ZOS wants a good example/formula to follow for how to do an Elder Scrolls story minus an evil cult, the obvious place to look is Skyrim. There were two main narratives playing out: The civil war and dragons. And neither involved an evil cult. (Except later in the Dragonborn DLC, but not in the main game.) The cult stories were told in the optional daedric prince quests for the artifacts, which were all very well done. People still debate the "correct" side to choose in the civil war. It was very well done.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

One of the things to take into account with the ES universe is the lack of communication. People from daggerfall wouldn't necessarily realize that the worm cult members from Windhelm are dying in droves, at least not until some time after.

If I had a cult (or any other kind of secret organization) I would consider that and employ some kind of emergency system. Some way to inform other chapters (or how ever to call it) that there was an attack. Since almost everyone except for the player character can open portals, it would make sense to assign that job to a few portal mages who would, in case of emergency, flee and warn others. Maybe not all of them would survive, but one would be sufficient to spread the news.

Another thing I've been thinking about (one of several, but I've already forgotten the rest ) is that we don't know what the cult promises to its members. Cults often functioned with some "but in the afterlife, you'll be rewarded and get this and that" promise. Maybe in case of the Wormcult it's something "plausible" - if you believe in that nonsense. But then I'd like to see that in game: Worm cultists talking about what they think awaits them. Not necessarily towards the player character, but it could be included in the background chatter that you sometimes hear enemies talk about if you get close enough without being detected.

I agree with the idea of background chatter. I was thinking about that as well, what the worm cult promises people to get them to join.

I would also be interested in seeing 'pamphlets' that are perhaps laying around where the worm cult is, that is the sort of propaganda that they use to get people to join. For all we know, the lower levels of the cult think that the Planemeld is simply a bridge :P and not a total destruction (just kidding, I have no clue what everyone would think) and that is why they aren't worried about it.

As for the communication, it would honestly depend on whether the higher ups actually care about the people dying. They might not bother with communication between the lower levels. Higher ups, the people in charge of the individual chapters would probably be told, but they might not necessarily care about the new recruits/those beneath them. Especially if they see them as a plentiful, never ending supply.

Again, there have been many instances of that in the real world as well, where the higher ups put measures in place to protect themselves, but those beneath them are left out of the loop.

I could easily see the worm cult, lead by their worship, or whatever you want to call it, of Molag Bal, not caring about those beneath them. I just looked it up and here are some of the lines that Molag Bal uses at Dolmens:

"Yes. Sacrifice those servants in my name. Let's give you something worthy to sacrifice!"'
"How many have you killed to defeat me? Each death is like a prayer to me!"
"Kill my minions and you only remove the weaklings from my service."

While he may be talking about the Daedra he summons and not the humans in his service, I can easily see that type of rhetoric being passed down through the ranks, until the lower levels start thinking it is an honor to be killed in service to Molag Bal.

Syldras

Pevey wrote: »

Probably also that.
It's been a while, but from memory... There are a lot of lines that talk about fate. And that Ithelia represents a threat because of the possibility of different paths, i.e., veering away from fate. Chaos. So, essentially, free will. That is what I took away at least. There were enough hints at this in the dialogue that I felt like it was probably an intended theme. Something about the story still did not resonate with me. But I appreciated the effort at some theme besides just "evil cult."

I agree with you that it can be read as this. My main "problem" is that I'm just not sure anymore whether ESO's writing really hints at something deeper at times, something beyond tropes and clichés. We still had that in the earlier years - later, not so much. So if I have to assess the situation, I'd rather suspect jumping on the multiverse bandwagon (hoping that would mean a financial success) and wanting to tell another "world-ending threat" (this time by chaos) catastrophe story to be the reasons for the Ithelia story, more than anything else. But I can err, of course.

What I did like was that Ithelia was not depicted as a monster, but, like all Daedric Princes, just doing what she has to do. Although in general I found the Princes to be humanized too much in their depiction. And there's many more things I didn't really like, but that's another topic in itself.

colossalvoids

I do not really like how worm cult became even more one dimensional in ESO than it was in Oblivion. My favourite "bad guys" in tes are Mankar and Voryn so I prefer ones who I'd have a second thought about, maybe they have a pretty solid point to begin with.

Pevey

Syldras wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

Probably also that.
It's been a while, but from memory... There are a lot of lines that talk about fate. And that Ithelia represents a threat because of the possibility of different paths, i.e., veering away from fate. Chaos. So, essentially, free will. That is what I took away at least. There were enough hints at this in the dialogue that I felt like it was probably an intended theme. Something about the story still did not resonate with me. But I appreciated the effort at some theme besides just "evil cult."

I agree with you that it can be read as this. My main "problem" is that I'm just not sure anymore whether ESO's writing really hints at something deeper at times, something beyond tropes and clichés. We still had that in the earlier years - later, not so much. So if I have to assess the situation, I'd rather suspect jumping on the multiverse bandwagon (hoping that would mean a financial success) and wanting to tell another "world-ending threat" (this time by chaos) catastrophe story to be the reasons for the Ithelia story, more than anything else. But I can err, of course.

What I did like was that Ithelia was not depicted as a monster, but, like all Daedric Princes, just doing what she has to do. Although in general I found the Princes to be humanized too much in their depiction. And there's many more things I didn't really like, but that's another topic in itself.

I think it's very possible that I was squinting pretty hard, trying to see something in the story I liked.

I'm sure the writing team at ZOS has some talented people. It's the "genre" of stories ESO seems to be forcing upon itself that turns any story into something that makes you feel like you're watching a children's cartoon. It can be about politics, vampires, murder (Dark Brotherhood), the world ending, whatever, and it still seems like it was not written for adults. I'm not sure how else to explain it. It is just off.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Pevey wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

Probably also that.
It's been a while, but from memory... There are a lot of lines that talk about fate. And that Ithelia represents a threat because of the possibility of different paths, i.e., veering away from fate. Chaos. So, essentially, free will. That is what I took away at least. There were enough hints at this in the dialogue that I felt like it was probably an intended theme. Something about the story still did not resonate with me. But I appreciated the effort at some theme besides just "evil cult."

I agree with you that it can be read as this. My main "problem" is that I'm just not sure anymore whether ESO's writing really hints at something deeper at times, something beyond tropes and clichés. We still had that in the earlier years - later, not so much. So if I have to assess the situation, I'd rather suspect jumping on the multiverse bandwagon (hoping that would mean a financial success) and wanting to tell another "world-ending threat" (this time by chaos) catastrophe story to be the reasons for the Ithelia story, more than anything else. But I can err, of course.

What I did like was that Ithelia was not depicted as a monster, but, like all Daedric Princes, just doing what she has to do. Although in general I found the Princes to be humanized too much in their depiction. And there's many more things I didn't really like, but that's another topic in itself.

I think it's very possible that I was squinting pretty hard, trying to see something in the story I liked.

I'm sure the writing team at ZOS has some talented people. It's the "genre" of stories ESO seems to be forcing upon itself that turns any story into something that makes you feel like you're watching a children's cartoon. It can be about politics, vampires, murder (Dark Brotherhood), the world ending, whatever, and it still seems like it was not written for adults. I'm not sure how else to explain it. It is just off.

I think one of the biggest issues, and I have seen this brought up elsewhere, is that ESO wants to have a broad audience, so it wants to make its stories appeal to as many people as they can. Which often means making things less nuanced or more bland.

I play another game, not like ESO, where it started I think a bit longer ago than ESO, and when it first started, its lore was a bit more nuanced.

But, people started complaining about real life parallels, and they have started retconning basically all the lore that might be taken as dark, or where the pets you can have (it is a pet site) might be considered morally grey, or as 'bad'.

Any aspect of lore that can be taken as 'bad' towards any specific group, people complain about, to the point that new lore coming out is bland and pretty much has no nuance at all.

So I have the feeling that plays into the writing at least in part, because they want more people to play ESO, and the more nuanced the lore, the more likely it is that someone is going to get upset about it. While just one person getting upset isn't anything to worry about, these things have a habit of snowballing as that person talks to people of like minds.

Pevey

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

Probably also that.
It's been a while, but from memory... There are a lot of lines that talk about fate. And that Ithelia represents a threat because of the possibility of different paths, i.e., veering away from fate. Chaos. So, essentially, free will. That is what I took away at least. There were enough hints at this in the dialogue that I felt like it was probably an intended theme. Something about the story still did not resonate with me. But I appreciated the effort at some theme besides just "evil cult."

I agree with you that it can be read as this. My main "problem" is that I'm just not sure anymore whether ESO's writing really hints at something deeper at times, something beyond tropes and clichés. We still had that in the earlier years - later, not so much. So if I have to assess the situation, I'd rather suspect jumping on the multiverse bandwagon (hoping that would mean a financial success) and wanting to tell another "world-ending threat" (this time by chaos) catastrophe story to be the reasons for the Ithelia story, more than anything else. But I can err, of course.

What I did like was that Ithelia was not depicted as a monster, but, like all Daedric Princes, just doing what she has to do. Although in general I found the Princes to be humanized too much in their depiction. And there's many more things I didn't really like, but that's another topic in itself.

I think it's very possible that I was squinting pretty hard, trying to see something in the story I liked.

I'm sure the writing team at ZOS has some talented people. It's the "genre" of stories ESO seems to be forcing upon itself that turns any story into something that makes you feel like you're watching a children's cartoon. It can be about politics, vampires, murder (Dark Brotherhood), the world ending, whatever, and it still seems like it was not written for adults. I'm not sure how else to explain it. It is just off.

I think one of the biggest issues, and I have seen this brought up elsewhere, is that ESO wants to have a broad audience, so it wants to make its stories appeal to as many people as they can. Which often means making things less nuanced or more bland.

I play another game, not like ESO, where it started I think a bit longer ago than ESO, and when it first started, its lore was a bit more nuanced.

But, people started complaining about real life parallels, and they have started retconning basically all the lore that might be taken as dark, or where the pets you can have (it is a pet site) might be considered morally grey, or as 'bad'.

Any aspect of lore that can be taken as 'bad' towards any specific group, people complain about, to the point that new lore coming out is bland and pretty much has no nuance at all.

So I have the feeling that plays into the writing at least in part, because they want more people to play ESO, and the more nuanced the lore, the more likely it is that someone is going to get upset about it. While just one person getting upset isn't anything to worry about, these things have a habit of snowballing as that person talks to people of like minds.

I think it's certainly possible this is part of what's happening. A purposeful decision to eliminate nuance to avoid any hint of controversy. This ends up making it cartoonish, which is almost by definition the opposite of nuance.

It's a mistake. If there is no nuance at all, nobody cares at all. There's nothing there to care about.

Using Skyrim again as an example, the nationalist Stormcloak rally of "Skyrim is for the Nords" has obvious real world parallels. But on other side, you are cooperating with the Thalmor, who have a lot in common with another group with a pretty obvious real-life parallel. It's hard to imagine a more controversial story. But that is something players project onto the story themselves. And the writers handled it by literally not choosing sides. They make the player choose sides (or not choose, and simply not advance that story). If it had been a different story, one much more bland and with no real-life parallels (if that's even possible), would it have caught fire and blown up like it did? Hard to say. Controversy has to be navigated carefully, usually by never acknowledging any real-life parallel and taking enough from different places that it is ambiguous. But without any controversy at all, you end up with something so bland no one has any interest.

SpaceElf

.

Syldras

colossalvoids wrote: »

I do not really like how worm cult became even more one dimensional in ESO than it was in Oblivion. My favourite "bad guys" in tes are Mankar and Voryn so I prefer ones who I'd have a second thought about, maybe they have a pretty solid point to begin with.

What I loved about TES 3's story is that it wasn't just some world-ending threat story through Dagoth Ur and the Divine Disease; but the whole Tribunal/Voryn/Nerevar thing was also a personal tragedy - and as Nerevar reborn you were right in the middle of it. Whether one liked the main figures or not, they were interesting and had more than just an over-obvious superficial characterization.

Originally it was planned for Morrowind to have different endings, by the way, including one where you could decide to join Dagoth Ur. In Daggerfall it had been that way - different endings, and you could also do quests for Mannimarco and even give him the big central relict in the end.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So I have the feeling that plays into the writing at least in part, because they want more people to play ESO, and the more nuanced the lore, the more likely it is that someone is going to get upset about it. While just one person getting upset isn't anything to worry about, these things have a habit of snowballing as that person talks to people of like minds.

I agree with you. I just wished they would realize that bland "safe" writing makes the whole thing uninteresting for a lot of people and also drives people away.

Ilsabet

The new Meet the Character article has some interesting (though largely speculative) insight on the resurgence of the Worm Cult and what Mannimarco's plans might have been.

Syldras

Ilsabet wrote: »

The new Meet the Character article has some interesting (though largely speculative) insight on the resurgence of the Worm Cult and what Mannimarco's plans might have been.

Interesting article, and it answers some of our questions.

It is said Mannimarco established a Worm Nest hidden not only from his enemies across Tamriel, but also from all other Worm Nests. If some disaster was to befall the Worm Cult or Mannimarco’s own person—for example, his defeat at Sancre Tor—it was the task of this hidden nest to come forward and reestablish the cult. Accurate or not, such a plan is exactly the sort of foresighted deviousness we should expect from a villain as brilliant as Mannimarco. It rings true, yes?

Having a plan B is a sign of "brilliance" and "deviousness" nowadays?

Some cultists believe Wormblood is not just any High Elf. He may in fact be close kin to Mannimarco himself! A cousin or nephew, perhaps, who chose to follow his elder into the darkness. In this account, Wormblood abandoned his own name in an act of rebellion against the family who disowned him for practicing forbidden arts.

By the Three, I hope it won't become some cheesy family story.

Unless it's not Mannimarco's cousin but Galerion's whom Mannimarco has seduced onto the dark path out of spite. Then I'd have a laugh for a while. But it would still be cheesy

metheglyn

Ilsabet wrote: »

The new Meet the Character article has some interesting (though largely speculative) insight on the resurgence of the Worm Cult and what Mannimarco's plans might have been.

I just read it, and was amused to see it touching on some points we all had been discussing here.

I guess Mannimarco is a plans-within-plans type of guy.

I do hope Wormblood isn't related to Mannimarco, though. Seems like it would have come up somewhere before now if he had any cousins or nephews who followed him into wormhood; in fact, seems like the kind of thing Galerion would have known.

Syldras

But isn't it strange somehow that we're first told that the Worm Cult is just some cliché evil for the sake of evil organisation and how fun that type of narration was - and now it sounds like there is a bit more of a background to it? Unless of course that nephew or whoever he is is also just evil for the sake of evil ("I want to be even more evil than my evil uncle!!!"), which would be disappointing of course.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Pevey wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Pevey wrote: »

Probably also that.
It's been a while, but from memory... There are a lot of lines that talk about fate. And that Ithelia represents a threat because of the possibility of different paths, i.e., veering away from fate. Chaos. So, essentially, free will. That is what I took away at least. There were enough hints at this in the dialogue that I felt like it was probably an intended theme. Something about the story still did not resonate with me. But I appreciated the effort at some theme besides just "evil cult."

I agree with you that it can be read as this. My main "problem" is that I'm just not sure anymore whether ESO's writing really hints at something deeper at times, something beyond tropes and clichés. We still had that in the earlier years - later, not so much. So if I have to assess the situation, I'd rather suspect jumping on the multiverse bandwagon (hoping that would mean a financial success) and wanting to tell another "world-ending threat" (this time by chaos) catastrophe story to be the reasons for the Ithelia story, more than anything else. But I can err, of course.

What I did like was that Ithelia was not depicted as a monster, but, like all Daedric Princes, just doing what she has to do. Although in general I found the Princes to be humanized too much in their depiction. And there's many more things I didn't really like, but that's another topic in itself.

I think it's very possible that I was squinting pretty hard, trying to see something in the story I liked.

I'm sure the writing team at ZOS has some talented people. It's the "genre" of stories ESO seems to be forcing upon itself that turns any story into something that makes you feel like you're watching a children's cartoon. It can be about politics, vampires, murder (Dark Brotherhood), the world ending, whatever, and it still seems like it was not written for adults. I'm not sure how else to explain it. It is just off.

I think one of the biggest issues, and I have seen this brought up elsewhere, is that ESO wants to have a broad audience, so it wants to make its stories appeal to as many people as they can. Which often means making things less nuanced or more bland.

I play another game, not like ESO, where it started I think a bit longer ago than ESO, and when it first started, its lore was a bit more nuanced.

But, people started complaining about real life parallels, and they have started retconning basically all the lore that might be taken as dark, or where the pets you can have (it is a pet site) might be considered morally grey, or as 'bad'.

Any aspect of lore that can be taken as 'bad' towards any specific group, people complain about, to the point that new lore coming out is bland and pretty much has no nuance at all.

So I have the feeling that plays into the writing at least in part, because they want more people to play ESO, and the more nuanced the lore, the more likely it is that someone is going to get upset about it. While just one person getting upset isn't anything to worry about, these things have a habit of snowballing as that person talks to people of like minds.

I think it's certainly possible this is part of what's happening. A purposeful decision to eliminate nuance to avoid any hint of controversy. This ends up making it cartoonish, which is almost by definition the opposite of nuance.

It's a mistake. If there is no nuance at all, nobody cares at all. There's nothing there to care about.

Using Skyrim again as an example, the nationalist Stormcloak rally of "Skyrim is for the Nords" has obvious real world parallels. But on other side, you are cooperating with the Thalmor, who have a lot in common with another group with a pretty obvious real-life parallel. It's hard to imagine a more controversial story. But that is something players project onto the story themselves. And the writers handled it by literally not choosing sides. They make the player choose sides (or not choose, and simply not advance that story). If it had been a different story, one much more bland and with no real-life parallels (if that's even possible), would it have caught fire and blown up like it did? Hard to say. Controversy has to be navigated carefully, usually by never acknowledging any real-life parallel and taking enough from different places that it is ambiguous. But without any controversy at all, you end up with something so bland no one has any interest.

I completely agree and the petsite I mentioned, I find it sad how they are trying to erase any sort of real world parallels that might be taken negatively, but I can understand it.

Honestly, I always hated the civil war in Skyrim. Not so much because of the parallels, but because you basically just played a game of risk to end it. I would have loved if they had made a third option, where you, the dragonborn, who has fought all these powerful dragons and powerful enemies, were able to actually create a third path and truly end the war.

I think even if it does have real life parallel, people need to realize that this is fiction. Fiction is exactly the place you want to explore the what ifs and try out something different (I never do, but other people like to :P) Just because the fictional Nords believe something and the fictional Imperials believe something else, doesn't mean that by siding with one or the other, you believe the same things in real life. It *can* but it doesn't mean that it always does.

There are many things I will read about that I don't condone in real life, I like superhero/vigilante stories, but that doesn't mean I condone in vigilantism in real life. I just went and did the dark brotherhood story line after all this time and I definitely don't condone murder. (as an aside, I would love for a vigilante type group of assassins where each contract was carefully scrutinized and only taken if the law had failed, such as the case of someone murdering someone else, but being too powerful/rich/influential to be convicted and punished) I also realized I hadn't done Kari's Hit List, so just finished that today, and I don't condone theft.

metheglyn

Syldras wrote: »

But isn't it strange somehow that we're first told that the Worm Cult is just some cliché evil for the sake of evil organisation and how fun that type of narration was - and now it sounds like there is a bit more of a background to it? Unless of course that nephew or whoever he is is also just evil for the sake of evil ("I want to be even more evil than my evil uncle!!!"), which would be disappointing of course.

It is a bit odd that the two articles don't seem to be in sync with one another. Perhaps different takes on the story from different departments? I don't know how they decide what to tell us and when. Meet the Character articles tend to have more detail and narrower focus, whereas the general story overview article talks in broad strokes to avoid spoilers.

But I am glad to see there's potentially more thought behind the second rise of the cult, though if Wormblood ends up being that "evil just because" cliché, I will be very disappointed.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I think even if it does have real life parallel, people need to realize that this is fiction

I honestly don't get why understanding this seems to be such a problem nowadays, since for many decades, it was not. Of course I've come across this sentiment a lot in the past years, in game forums for example, where some people seem to demand a statement that the things we're roleplaying or doing in a game or things an artist is writing (or portraying in one way or another) do of course not reflect our real world beliefs. The first time it honestly left me baffled because I could never imagine that someone would even think that.

I'm wondering whether that's another side-effect of writing that delivers obvious moral stories. So some people seem to think every piece of literature and every work of fiction is actually intended to be a moral teaching by the artist.

spartaxoxo

Syldras wrote: »

I'm wondering whether that's another side-effect of writing that delivers obvious moral stories. So some people seem to think every piece of literature and every work of fiction is actually intended to be a moral teaching by the artist.

Yeah, I don't get stuff like that either. Does anyone really need to be told not emulate Molag Bal? It's baffling. Yeah, some stories impart morals. And some stories may not do so intentionally but do show that the author has some pretty warped views. But many stories don't have anything to do with any of that. Depicting something in a story is not condoning it. I've seen episodes of TV shows pulled for critizing racism because they depict the racism prior to clearly and directly condemning it. Like....?

I think that's probably one of the reasons that Elder Scrolls writing plays things a bit safer these days. Although I'm sure the writer views have also evolved over times.

Syldras

metheglyn wrote: »

It is a bit odd that the two articles don't seem to be in sync with one another. Perhaps different takes on the story from different departments? I don't know how they decide what to tell us and when. Meet the Character articles tend to have more detail and narrower focus, whereas the general story overview article talks in broad strokes to avoid spoilers.

It's as mysterious as when they told us back then that Azandar was a mix between Dumbledore and Willy Wonka, and then he turned out to be completely different

metheglyn wrote: »

But I am glad to see there's potentially more thought behind the second rise of the cult, though if Wormblood ends up being that "evil just because" cliché, I will be very disappointed.

I'm curious whether they actually make a family story out of it (which I wouldn't be the biggest fan of, although it really depends on details), or whether it's actually Mannimarco himself who has tricked us by whatever mysterious method and now returned as a lich.

Also, I'd really like to get more background story about him; and about Galerion too, actually. Would especially be interesting if there was something dark in the past that stains Galerion's reputation a bit. I see that Mannimarco and Galerion were designed as absolute opposites - one extremely "evil", the other one flawlessly "good" - but that's what lorebooks by fictional authors say, which might not be the full truth. And why were they even close friends if they had completely opposite mentalities?

Ilsabet

I think there's a tendency for some people in fandom to identify really strongly with the things they like, and that carries over in both their own self-image and how they judge others in fandom spaces like forums or social media. Like the people who base their entire personality around loving a particular character, and if you criticize the character you're criticizing them. Or the people who would hear you say something like "I think the Dunmer are really cool" and decide that you must be a racist who supports slavery, because clearly if you like something then you must endorse everything about it.

People just get very personally invested in fiction, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can also warp how they see themselves and others and how they interact with stories, creators, and other fans. Many of these people would benefit from a more balanced perspective that isn't hyperfocused on that one thing they like, or just not taking it so personally, or maybe just good old touching grass.

metheglyn

Syldras wrote: »

I'm curious whether they actually make a family story out of it (which I wouldn't be the biggest fan of, although it really depends on details), or whether it's actually Mannimarco himself who has tricked us by whatever mysterious method and now returned as a lich.

Also, I'd really like to get more background story about him; and about Galerion too, actually. Would especially be interesting if there was something dark in the past that stains Galerion's reputation a bit. I see that Mannimarco and Galerion were designed as absolute opposites - one extremely "evil", the other one flawlessly "good" - but that's what lorebooks by fictional authors say, which might not be the full truth. And why were they even close friends if they had completely opposite mentalities?

When I read the meet the character article, I did wonder if Wormblood could be Mannimarco himself, but I don't know enough about Mannimarco's future life to know whether or not that's possible. (I know he shows up in an earlier game, which is later in the timeline, but I don't know the details).

I would like to know more about Galerion and Mannimarco's previous friendship. We get hints of it in that delve on Artaeum, but only about the ending of it, when Mannimarco had gone too far. I got the impression they had been pretty close prior to that, and that Galerion felt more than just betrayed--somewhat blindsided. But maybe I was reading more into it than was there.

I'd actual like a deeper look in Galerion's life and past than what I've had, because though I've read the in game lore books about him, who knows how accurate those are? I know in person he gets on my nerves quite a bit with his "I'm the great mage!" refrain, and I'd like to know if there's much more to him than overweening conceit.

Syldras

metheglyn wrote: »

When I read the meet the character article, I did wonder if Wormblood could be Mannimarco himself, but I don't know enough about Mannimarco's future life to know whether or not that's possible. (I know he shows up in an earlier game, which is later in the timeline, but I don't know the details).

There aren't any real details beyond that Mannimarco somehow is free again. Maybe we'll learn more about it in ESO now.

Although I somehow feel a bit sorry for new players who accidentally play the new story first before even having a look at the original one. Now it would really be high time to somehow mark the quests in their right order in game, so you'd at least get a warning pop up if you start the new one before you finished the old one (something that does not happen with the prologue; as a test I accepted it on a character who has never touched the main quest or the fighters guild questline, and did not get any info that it will butcher their timeline beyond repair).

metheglyn wrote: »

I would like to know more about Galerion and Mannimarco's previous friendship. We get hints of it in that delve on Artaeum, but only about the ending of it, when Mannimarco had gone too far. I got the impression they had been pretty close prior to that, and that Galerion felt more than just betrayed--somewhat blindsided. But maybe I was reading more into it than was there.

I wrote it in a different thread a few weeks ago: I had the impression they were not just friends. But of course, I'm well aware that my subjective impression can be skewed. In any case, I'd really be interested in learning more about their friendship and how their life was when they were younger (That's also something I'd love to see when it comes to Sotha Sil - and yes, I know about the tragic incident in Ald Sotha, but what happened in the years after that?).

metheglyn wrote: »

I'd actual like a deeper look in Galerion's life and past than what I've had, because though I've read the in game lore books about him, who knows how accurate those are? I know in person he gets on my nerves quite a bit with his "I'm the great mage!" refrain, and I'd like to know if there's much more to him than overweening conceit.

Who knows whether he's actually that self-confident or just pretending to be (and maybe faking it a bit too much). If the story about his childhood is true, I think it's very much possible.

I think the depiction of Mannimarco and Galerion as extreme opposites in lorebooks might be exaggerated as a stylistic device. If you depict one person as extremely good, the other one will look even more evil; if you depict one as horribly unbelievably bad, the good one will shine more. It would be interesting to see in game that the "reality" might look a little different. But I'm not sure whether they'll be going for that.

No matter from which perspective we look at it: What would make the whole situation more interesting would be more details and more nuance, not less.