Kickimanjaro wrote: »

For the Pact!

To oblivion with the pact.

Damn, did you fight so bad the enemy felt the need to thank you?
Perhaps you are spai?


i kid btw

FurryCandyHearts wrote: »

No vengeance for you!

This time is not Vengeance, is...

I think something else that should be discussed is the companion vs NPC.

If Tan had been an NPC in the companion questline, and the actual companion was someone like Hyacinth or even Wisteria, I think that Tan would have probably been accepted more readily, even without a single change in personality.

But, it is the difference between 'I see this character a few times, so, while their personality can be annoying, I can put up with it' vs 'This is a character that is meant to be a major part of the quest lines, through being a companion to me, I don't want a personality that is so annoying'.

This is also the difference between 'one and done' NPCs and recurring characters. If a character is recurring they are often held to higher standards than a character that you meet once and then move on once their quest/part in the quest is finished.

Tan is meant to be one of the 'highest' forms of recurring character, a companion that the player character is meant to want to have travel with them. I don't want Tan's story line to change, I am glad that there are people who like them.

But, I wish that Tan had had a personality that I liked and that their story line had been better written. Because while I can see Wisteria telling people about Tan's pronouns, I don't know exactly how widespread that would have traveled, and I don't know how well that would have been respected, especially since Tan was an enemy and someone that was supposed to be taken out of the way. Especially since it is seemingly an unusual choice in TES lore. Sure, we have had other 'they/them' characters, but it doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon, nor do I imagine it would be accepted everywhere.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Modern storytelling not allowing messaging if it's not the correct messages is very much part of the higher standards.

Artistic and ethical standards may clash with each other. To quote Oscar Wilde: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." And even if exaggerated, that is mostly true even with video games and movies. A need to have one's entertainment or art ethically "pure" is a mark of insecurity. An imposition of "correct" (according to whom?) messages and only them everywhere is more socialist realism than true art. I find it dull even if I agree with the view the author is expressing. A piece of art may have an ethical aim, but it must be made subject to aesthetic considerations.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

And if you can't address pronouns directly by having characters discuss them but you also can't just make it undiscussed and automatic, then it becomes a spot where you can't have such a character at all because the standards are impossible.

Also all of the henchman are literally sent by Tanlorin's girlfriend. It would weird for them not to know.

This is true. There's no reason why the villains can't know about Tanlorin's pronoun preferences. The oppressiveness of the Altmer culture seems anyway to be more about class and perfection than any gender issue.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Modern storytelling not allowing messaging if it's not the correct messages is very much part of the higher standards.

And if you can't address pronouns directly by having characters discuss them but you also can't just make it undiscussed and automatic, then it becomes a spot where you can't have such a character at all because the standards are impossible.

Also all of the henchman are literally sent by Tanlorin's girlfriend. It would weird for them not to know.

It's great you came up with a plausible explanation as to how they know. You could state as much without assuming whatever is being assumed by people who asked about it who may have missed this. Honestly fans of fiction often discuss plot holes about anything and everything - and sometimes there are explanations that can be considered and that's fine.

I still think discussions about that really are secondary to the fact that Tanlorin simply isn't very likable to many people and is polarizing, and would be whether they were nonbinary or not.

WuffyCerulei wrote: »

Like, you do realize these VERY high numbers are max cheese parses? Like, they're not optimal for actual content, and parse monkeys often have to learn that the hard way. The enemy isn't going to be static and always have that perfect Maelstrom greatsword setup. Mechanics happen. The trial dummy is just what COULD happen, not what will happen.

I know that and I also know what will and won’t happen.

• ZoS will nerf some sets, that part is guaranteed.
• What won’t happen is actual balance in the game.

Because balance is completely out of control, and for ZoS balancing basically means nerfing a few sets while making others overpowered. And then, at the same time, they release new items that instantly unbalance the balance they were supposedly trying to balance, creating even more unbalanced balance that needs more balancing, which then gets unbalanced again by the next wave of ‘balance’ items. It’s just an endless loop of balancing the unbalance with new unbalanced balance meant to fix the previous balance that unbalanced the balance before it.

Welcome to ESO, where balance gets balanced by unbalancing the balance with new balance that unbalances everything all over again.