Aertew wrote: »

So Im going the prologue for the Elswheyr expansion, and I didnt know it came out today, so i got talk to Abnur Tharn and there isn't any Reunion or anything like we had with Darius in Summerset, there is even a option to ask who he is. I don't understand. Why did Abnur Tharn and the character completely miss the entire Fight against molag bal and going into cold harbor?

RaddlemanNumber7 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

RaddlemanNumber7 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

RaddlemanNumber7 wrote: »

I shake my head. So many players on this thread have misread Tharn. These players have mistakenly assumed that Tharn is a transgressor, or a necromancer, or even an antagonist. But a new part of the game has appeared which treats Tharn as if he is none of those things. Now these players are saying that the Devs have made a mistake, that the game's writers have written the dialogue of the Elsweyr Prologue wrong. And these players fault Tharn for his arrogance. I shake my head.

So very tempted to shake my head back at you.

But you know what?

Its a roleplaying game. We can all have different interpretations, and the Devs don't get to mandate whether our characters liked Tharn or not. I have a character who I role play as a former Imperial legionnaire who now works for Tharn and she absolutely agrees with you that Tharn is the best person to hold onto the Amulet. My Vestige thinks it ought to go to the Drake of Blades, who's done far more to safeguard the return of a Dragonborn Emperor than Tharn.

It's a roleplaying game. Neither of us get to mandate an interpretation of Tharn and call each other "wrong", even as we obviously have alternate interpretations of him.

I would have been happy with Tharn having a simple answer to the relatively neutral "Why should I trust you? Meridia told me you ran off with the Amulet of Kings."

Because that happened. And the devs dropped it like a hot potato, leaving that question unanswered, and I'm disappointed by their decision.

I do not disagree with anything you are saying about roleplay. I would not attempt to correct another player's roleplay or headcanon. But this is a "Lore" thread, not a "Fiction and Roleplaying" thread. Comments made about Lore can be wrong.

Posters are coming on this Lore thread and saying that Tharn has transgressed, that Tharn is a necromancer, that Tharn nefariously absconded with the Amulet of Kings (as if it is somehow the property of Vestige). That the game's writers have made a mistake in ignoring these things.

I have seen no evidence of any of these supposed wrongdoings by Tharn. Where in Lore or in game dialogue does it say any of this about Tharn? Where are the citations and screen shots to back up these claims about Tharn? I see none. It is my opinion that these claims about Tharn are wrong in this thread because they are against Lore.

Tharn is a necromancer. In the Main Quest, he tells you how to make a flesh atronach and comments "We'll make a necromancer of you yet." Yes, the Devs are aware of this.

https://twitter.com/TESOnline/status/1110206214858784768

In his own words, he gave an oath of loyalty to Mannimarco so he wouldn't be killed. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Chronicles_of_the_Five_Companions_4


At the end of the Main Quest, Meridia tells the Vestige (I'm quoting from the screenshots I have saved, you can go look up a youtube video yourself if you actually want evidence)
Vestige: Where is the Amulet of Kings?
Meridia: As your enemy fell, the one you call Abnur Tharn took Chim-el Adabal and fled. He returns to the land from whence he came, the place you call Cyrodiil.
Vestige: He took the Amulet with him?
Meridia: The Amulet's power has been expended for a generation or more. The Imperial will not be able to use it, nor will he profit from it, though he will spend many frustrated years in the attempt.

Later, in the Harborage (possibly subject to change depending on who you sacrifice:
Sai Sahan: Wait, where is Tharn? Did he survive?
Cadwell: He vanished. Ran off, I think. And he took the amulet you chaps found, with him.
Then, in conversation with Sai Sahan:
Vestige: Aren't you going to chase after Tharn?
Sai Sahan: To what end? No, let him return to his Imperial City. He played his role and that is enough. Grudges are like poison to the spirit.

So whether or not you think its nefarious that Tharn ran off with it (that being up to player interpretation), it is true that we've been told that he took it, which makes it a logical point of conversation for the next time he shows up out of the blue wanting our help.

I think the Devs missed an excellent chance to ask the eternal question.

Tharn asks the Vestige to conjure a flesh atro using the necro equipment in "The Tower of The Worm". This tells us nothing about Tharn's own skills with Necromancy unless you make a false inference or make your own assumptions about the situation. Let me try to clarify this using an analogy:

We are in a concert hall. Tharn points the Vestige at a piano and some sheet music, then asks us to play the tune. What does this request tell us about Tharn's own ability to play the piano? It tells us nothing one way or the other.

Regarding "We'll make a Necromancer of you yet," you misunderstand the English. The set phrase "We'll make a [...] of you yet" is an idiom. The [...] is always a competency of some kind. This idiom has as much literal meaning as the idiom "It's raining cats and dogs". The idiom "We'll make a [...] of you yet" is a patronising joke aimed at a junior by a senior, helpfully pointing out that the a piece of work the junior has just completed is a mere parody of what a competent person would have done. Going back to the piano analogy, if the task was completed when the Vestige had managed to noobishly plinky-plonk their way through a small bit of music, Tharn might say "We'll make a concert pianist of you yet." That is how the idiom used. The General usage of this idiom and the particular circumstances in which Tharn uses it in the Tower of the Worm entirely preclude any possibility of it being a literal statement of intent. It is just another snarky Tharnish put down.

So, that part of the game provides no evidence one way or another regarding Tharn's status as a Necromancer.

In the Chronicles of the Five Companions volume that you linked Tharn says he is a Sorcerer. Sorcery is not Necromancy.

To conclude on the evidence above that Tharn is a Necromancer is at best unfounded headcanon.

Regarding Tharn's involvement with Mannimarco: In dialogue, when Tharn first arrives in the Harborage, just after the lying, hypocritical, brutish, axe-killer Lyris Titanborn has punched this little 164-year-old man to the ground, Tharn says, "Mannimarco wants me dead! Did I pretend to capitulate to him? Yes, I did. Do you have any idea how many lives I saved by doing so?" Would those many lives saved not be sufficient to explain Tharn's actions? To dismiss Tharn's explanation of his actions is to make an arbitrary assumption about the game, more headcanon.

The Amulet of Kings: You quote Sai Sahan after the main quest. After all that Sai Sahan went through to protect the Amulet he doesn't even mention it. He clearly believes it has no further value. If you take Meridia at her word the Amulet is spent and useless for a generation. The amulet is clearly irrelevant to the Elsweyr Prologue. If it is useless, if it is irrelevant, if even Sai Sahan can't be bothered to mention it, why should the Devs have the Vestige mention it?

It seems to me that you, and others in this thread, are criticising the Devs for not pandering to your mistaken and arbitrary headcanon. That is why I have taken the time to correct you. Nothing personal.