Carzog's Demise. Hmm... (Spoilers)

spurned

I know it's very late to discuss a quest from the earliest of ESO days but I'm planning to play through every major storyline. And for the most part they are very compelling. There are however some moments that leave me befuddled. Not because the particularly quest is bad but the way it's resolved is a bit eyebrow raising.
Choosing to keep or destroy the relic will create a rift between your companions. I would argue that the sound choice, both morally and tactical is to get rid of it. Which surprised me when I was confronted with the fact the almost every woman wanted to keep the soul noming artefact. It makes female companions seem cruel or irresponsible. Granted on the other side there is the orc woman advocating for the destruction of the relic, but ironically her reasons are selfish. She cares more about her orc people not losing their footing with the bretons and redguard and less about the destructive nature of the relic. She mentions the unfair raizing of Orsinium while standing on a conquered island. There is also my opinion that Malacath cares very little about an orc state because it would take away from the obedience directed at him and his code.
Two of the other women can logically be placed in the "keep the relic" camp. Captain Kaleen believes in her redguard king and wants the war to be won by their side. Her protege, Nicolene, is loyal to her captain and more importantly mentions brothers in the Covenant army that the artefact might keep safe. But the thing that severely bugged me, mostly because personal attachment, was Crafty Lerisa's presence in this group. Her sharp wit, that cracked me up on more than one occasion, as well as her devotion to her crew makes her and odd choice for defending keeping a doomsday device.
As for the opposite team, things are weird there as well. Might be the cat person in me talking, but aside Kasan the rest of those people are unpleasant or inconsistent. Master Kasan said from the get go that a sailor should renounce political allegiances in favour to loyalty to his or her crew. He also clearly disagreed on sentencing your enemies to such a cruel soul consuming fate. Neramo happens to be on this team probably because altmer don't like any other race to have powerful toys. And as for the womanising kleptomaniac Jakarn, I find him taking a moral stand on anything cute.
If it were up to me I would have split the teams as such. Team keep relic: Captain Kaleen, Nicolene and Jakarn. Team destroy: Lerisa, Kasan while Lambur and Neramo being here for self serving reasons.
If you made it to the end of my wall of text, I commend you!

Diabolus1989

Captain Kaleen wanted the orb for King Fahara'jad.
Nicolene wanted the orb to protect the Covenant soldiers, including her brothers.

These are obvious reasons.

As for Lerisa: She's devoted to her crew, and she can be ruthless because of it. She's also seems to not be too bothered about the war and the politics to an extent. If you speak to her afterwards, she treats you as a friend again, forgetting the whole matter. So for me, it looked like she saw the potential benefit of the Covenant winning the war with the orb but in the end she didn't really care. As long as she has her crew and her ship.

Neramo wanted to destroy it because he didn't want it falling into someone else's hand. For research reasons I'm sure, but also, why would he want the orb in the hands of those against his own people in Summerset.

Jakarn seems to be the handsome rogue type who only looks for thrills (of many kinds), but we know he secretly has a soft side where he genuinely cares (we know he falls in love with Lerisa later). His line that it'd take the fun out of the war is probably just a front to save his reputation.

Lambur: I don't think she's being selfish in the way you're implying. This orb can control the spirits of her ancestors, something abhorrent in the eyes of most Orcs. Also it would be in the hands of the Bretons and Redguards and she's worried then eventually use the orb against the Orcs after the war (and with good reason, as we know that Orsinium will be razed a further two times since the current timeline in the 4th era).

spurned

Diabolus1989 wrote: »

Captain Kaleen wanted the orb for King Fahara'jad.
Nicolene wanted the orb to protect the Covenant soldiers, including her brothers.

These are obvious reasons.

As for Lerisa: She's devoted to her crew, and she can be ruthless because of it. She's also seems to not be too bothered about the war and the politics to an extent. If you speak to her afterwards, she treats you as a friend again, forgetting the whole matter. So for me, it looked like she saw the potential benefit of the Covenant winning the war with the orb but in the end she didn't really care. As long as she has her crew and her ship.

Neramo wanted to destroy it because he didn't want it falling into someone else's hand. For research reasons I'm sure, but also, why would he want the orb in the hands of those against his own people in Summerset.

Jakarn seems to be the handsome rogue type who only looks for thrills (of many kinds), but we know he secretly has a soft side where he genuinely cares (we know he falls in love with Lerisa later). His line that it'd take the fun out of the war is probably just a front to save his reputation.

Lambur: I don't think she's being selfish in the way you're implying. This orb can control the spirits of her ancestors, something abhorrent in the eyes of most Orcs. Also it would be in the hands of the Bretons and Redguards and she's worried then eventually use the orb against the Orcs after the war (and with good reason, as we know that Orsinium will be razed a further two times since the current timeline in the 4th era).

Hmm I see your point. I can agree with everything you said, because your lore knowledge is solid, except for how inconsistent Lerisa was made to be. Yes, real people's reasoning often shifts. But in works of fiction I want a certain degree of idealisation that makes characters, good or evil, seem dignified. Ironically enough, sometimes both the heroes and the villains are stereotypical, in the lines department: an evil werewolf growls in between his threats, a priestess relays cryptic messages in a soothing monotone or on the contrary a hero type says basically nothing but in a pompous way. The characters we discussed however were the right mix of real and fictional, if that makes any sense, right up to the point where the story I guess tried to balance out hard fantasy with hard life.
Jakarn falling for Lerisa however is priceless though! I haven't gotten that far yet but it seem like poetic justice for a playboy to be enthralled by a no nonsense type of woman.
On an unrelated note, I just finished the Summerset story and I was really confused about the decision on the main antagonist. While the other two, from the little that I know, fit lore wise very well, the big bad is neither that ostentatious nor that evil.

Diabolus1989

I admit, initially I was taken aback by Lerisa's stance and comments during the quest ending but the above reasons I provided is what I told myself to make it fit lol

I know she returns later to the Gold Coast but I haven't gotten there yet so I don't know if she mentions Carzog's Demise at all or if that's just a quest past and forgotten.

adriant1978

Does anyone else think it a bit odd that Kaleen believes King Fahara'jad will thank her for an Ayleid necromantic relic, considering the Redguards' history with the Ayleids and cultural attitudes to necromancy?

spurned

adriant1978 wrote: »

Does anyone else think it a bit odd that Kaleen believes King Fahara'jad will thank her for an Ayleid necromantic relic, considering the Redguards' history with the Ayleids and cultural attitudes to necromancy?

Hah! Never thought of that, good point. Although given the understandable lore shift from the norm, given the necessity of 3 pvp factions, I think traditions and values (good or bad) change as well.

spurned

Diabolus1989 wrote: »

I admit, initially I was taken aback by Lerisa's stance and comments during the quest ending but the above reasons I provided is what I told myself to make it fit lol

I know she returns later to the Gold Coast but I haven't gotten there yet so I don't know if she mentions Carzog's Demise at all or if that's just a quest past and forgotten.

Yes, I understand. It doesn't break the immersion that much and ultimately it doesn't impact the outcome either, given it's a MMO. Like I said, it was probably a matter of personal preference to have her in the same boat (cheesy pun intended) with Kasan, the other character I liked from this group.

Ghanima_Atreides

Regarding Lerisa - let's not forget that she took vicious delight in slowly and painfully poisoning Captain Helene to death, and berates you if you choose to give her the antidote. Sure, she had captured and tortured her crew, but Lerisa was certainly ruthless about it. She is no angel, so it doesn't surprise me that she would consider the relic an acceptable weapon.

spurned

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

Regarding Lerisa - let's not forget that she took vicious delight in slowly and painfully poisoning Captain Helene to death, and berates you if you choose to give her the antidote. Sure, she had captured and tortured her crew, but Lerisa was certainly ruthless about it. She is no angel, so it doesn't surprise me that she would consider the relic an acceptable weapon.

Is Lerisa an angel? She could be the avenging kind. You are placing revenge in the same category with atrocities. Besides if you gave Helene the antidote, a person who starved her cabin girl for kicks then you are on an extreme of the morality spectrum that makes you unable to appreciate nuanced characters and situations. Personally I chose to finish off Helene on the improbable chance she won't die from the poison. But MMO quests don't branch out that far. A player like yourself, and this is not a criticism, probably released Mannimarco as well. Retribution is a foundation of The Elder Scrolls lore. And I like to roll with it.

Ghanima_Atreides

You are making quite a few assumptions there. I have nothing whatsoever against retribution, or even Lerisa's behaviour, plus my characters' decisions are based on their personalities/beliefs and not mine - I have had characters who saved Helene (and indeed Mannimarco) and some who did not.

I'm just pointing out that she chose a particularly vicious way to dispatch Helene when she could have simply killed her quickly (something the player can do themselves) and as such she isn't the kind of person who would be squeamish about an Ayleid relic.

VaranisArano

spurned wrote: »

On an unrelated note, I just finished the Summerset story and I was really confused about the decision on the main antagonist. While the other two, from the little that I know, fit lore wise very well, the big bad is neither that ostentatious nor that evil.

I wasn't too surprised. Give a Daedric Prince the chance to reach for ultimate cosmic power, what do you really expect them to do?

Noctural's three nightingale agents are stealth, subterfuge, and strife. Those last two are definitely on display throughout the questline as Nocturnal not only manipulates the heroes but also her fellow Princes.

spurned

VaranisArano wrote: »

I wasn't too surprised. Give a Daedric Prince the chance to reach for ultimate cosmic power, what do you really expect them to do?

Noctural's three nightingale agents are stealth, subterfuge, and strife. Those last two are definitely on display throughout the questline as Nocturnal not only manipulates the heroes but also her fellow Princes.

The elements mentioned in your spoiler are the opposite of ostentatious. Which is how the Summerset chapter depicted that particular Daedric Prince who in fact leans towards neutral arrangements with mortals. There are also 2 more or less good daedra. And not by the Dunmer standards, although Azura coincides with theirs as well. Meridia being the other, who despite saving Nirn twice now in ESO, is way more careless with the lives of mortals than the Summerset antagonist. In typical lore that is. I love ESO and for the most part it respects said lore. However in this situation it strayed from it.

spurned

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

You are making quite a few assumptions there. I have nothing whatsoever against retribution, or even Lerisa's behaviour, plus my characters' decisions are based on their personalities/beliefs and not mine - I have had characters who saved Helene (and indeed Mannimarco) and some who did not.

I'm just pointing out that she chose a particularly vicious way to dispatch Helene when she could have simply killed her quickly (something the player can do themselves) and as such she isn't the kind of person who would be squeamish about an Ayleid relic.

I think if you assign various beliefs to characters devoid of any by definition, since you control them, we are dealing with some next level role playing. Also, and I might be wrong with this one, but there is an oddly fast time to which your comments get just one positive vote. Tooting your own horn is frowned upon.

Ghanima_Atreides

You may be unfamiliar with the concept of roleplay, but the idea is to assign them a set of beliefs and a personality of their own, and then see the events in the game through their eyes. Step into their shoes, as it were. At least that is how I like to play RPGs.
As for the positive votes, you can't approve of your own posts, so I don't know what you're trying to imply.

VaranisArano

spurned wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I wasn't too surprised. Give a Daedric Prince the chance to reach for ultimate cosmic power, what do you really expect them to do?

Noctural's three nightingale agents are stealth, subterfuge, and strife. Those last two are definitely on display throughout the questline as Nocturnal not only manipulates the heroes but also her fellow Princes.

The elements mentioned in your spoiler are the opposite of ostentatious. Which is how the Summerset chapter depicted that particular Daedric Prince who in fact leans towards neutral arrangements with mortals. There are also 2 more or less good daedra. And not by the Dunmer standards, although Azura coincides with theirs as well. Meridia being the other, who despite saving Nirn twice now in ESO, is way more careless with the lives of mortals than the Summerset antagonist. In typical lore that is. I love ESO and for the most part it respects said lore. However in this situation it strayed from it.

Sounds like you are disappointed that particular Daedric Prince didn't stay in the shadows. You might like Clockwork City's plot more.

spurned

VaranisArano wrote: »

Sounds like you are disappointed that particular Daedric Prince didn't stay in the shadows. You might like Clockwork City's plot more.

Sadly I can't get a subscription at the time being and I have just enough crowns to get a DLC that would yield me the best PVP mythic item (Malacath's ring for me since I play exclusively BGs and non CP campaigns). But yes I would love to play a story line with more toned down and dignified protagonists and antagonists. And if Clockwork City plays more on the established nature of the Daedric Prince in question it would certainly be right up my alley.

spurned

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

You may be unfamiliar with the concept of roleplay, but the idea is to assign them a set of beliefs and a personality of their own, and then see the events in the game through their eyes. Step into their shoes, as it were. At least that is how I like to play RPGs.
As for the positive votes, you can't approve of your own posts, so I don't know what you're trying to imply.

I have to apologise for the assumption that you approved your own post. I put it to the test myself and although the vote was denied I still feel like I need a shower.
But your idea of role playing, which is shared by at least one other person due to the consistent single vote, is fascinating. My enactment involves placing pieces of myself in my characters. Whether they are good pieces, darker impulses or anything in between. But to conjure complex personalities out of thin air like you do is awe inspiring. Which begs the question: why does an excellent student of the human nature such as yourself regard Lerisa so one-dimensionally inhuman?

adriant1978

spurned wrote: »

But your idea of role playing, which is shared by at least one other person due to the consistent single vote, is fascinating. My enactment involves placing pieces of myself in my characters. Whether they are good pieces, darker impulses or anything in between. But to conjure complex personalities out of thin air like you do is awe inspiring.

This is straying a bit off the topic of the quest in Carzog's, but hey it's your thread ...

There are generally two schools of thought in role playing games: either you take your own personality, or some elements of it, and place yourself into the fantasy world, or you create characters totally or almost totally unrelated to you as a person and use them to tell a story.

Proponents of both types often seem to have difficulty understanding the other variety, with questions like "why would you want to play yourself? Don't you already do that in real life?" and "how can you relate to a character which has nothing of you in it?" cropping up.

Is there a right and a wrong approach? Not really, IMO. Some people just like the idea of giving themselves the chance to explore a fictional world, while others are living out something more like a movie director fantasy with their created characters as the actors.

VaranisArano

spurned wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Sounds like you are disappointed that particular Daedric Prince didn't stay in the shadows. You might like Clockwork City's plot more.

Sadly I can't get a subscription at the time being and I have just enough crowns to get a DLC that would yield me the best PVP mythic item (Malacath's ring for me since I play exclusively BGs and non CP campaigns). But yes I would love to play a story line with more toned down and dignified protagonists and antagonists. And if Clockwork City plays more on the established nature of the Daedric Prince in question it would certainly be right up my alley.

FYI, Greymoor isn't a DLC, its a Chapter. You buy Chapters for cash, not crowns. Unless you want to wait a year for the new Chapter, and then Greymoor will be a DLC that you can buy for crowns, but means waiting a year for your gear.

Ghanima_Atreides

spurned wrote: »

I have to apologise for the assumption that you approved your own post. I put it to the test myself and although the vote was denied I still feel like I need a shower.
But your idea of role playing, which is shared by at least one other person due to the consistent single vote, is fascinating. My enactment involves placing pieces of myself in my characters. Whether they are good pieces, darker impulses or anything in between. But to conjure complex personalities out of thin air like you do is awe inspiring. Which begs the question: why does an excellent student of the human nature such as yourself regard Lerisa so one-dimensionally inhuman?

adriant1978 pretty much hit the nail there in terms of different roleplay styles; I belong firmly in the "see my characters as a writer might - entities I created but are not me" camp. I don't know if this makes me an excellent student of the human nature or not, and I am not saying that the other style is wrong, it's just how I like to play. I have no interest in playing as a version of myself.

That said - I am not trying to suggest Lerisa is one-dimensionally inhuman at all. She is a good person, essentially - loyal and brave, but she also strikes me as an "ends justify the means" kind of person, within limits. She is a pirate, after all. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post, but you seemed to suggest that just because she is devoted to her crew, she would automatically reject the relic (because it's too evil and she's too nice?) Personally I figured that she wouldn't have strong feelings about it one way or another, since it doesn't concern her or her crew directly, but they are still part of the Covenant and she has been known to do odd jobs to help its leaders, so a relic that would, theoretically, keep Covenant waters safe might look useful in her eyes.
That's just my interpretation.

spurned

adriant1978 wrote: »

This is straying a bit off the topic of the quest in Carzog's, but hey it's your thread ...

There are generally two schools of thought in role playing games: either you take your own personality, or some elements of it, and place yourself into the fantasy world, or you create characters totally or almost totally unrelated to you as a person and use them to tell a story.

Proponents of both types often seem to have difficulty understanding the other variety, with questions like "why would you want to play yourself? Don't you already do that in real life?" and "how can you relate to a character which has nothing of you in it?" cropping up.

Is there a right and a wrong approach? Not really, IMO. Some people just like the idea of giving themselves the chance to explore a fictional world, while others are living out something more like a movie director fantasy with their created characters as the actors.

You make absolute sense. However I take issue with the fact that the previous person has a very strong opinion for someone who claims he/she severed personal emotions to experience fabricated ones. And here lies the problem: you can "role play" something completely different but deep down that character is still filtered through your own personality. If you take an action uncharacteristic to you, even just to experience something new or for cathartic reasons, you will have a reaction. Which leads to my point: this person claimed he/she had some characters that supported Lerisa and others that did not. Clearly they (correct gender neutral pronoun?) identified more with the latter characters given their unequivocal comments.

spurned

VaranisArano wrote: »

FYI, Greymoor isn't a DLC, its a Chapter. You buy Chapters for cash, not crowns. Unless you want to wait a year for the new Chapter, and then Greymoor will be a DLC that you can buy for crowns, but means waiting a year for your gear.

Indeed. However some of the mythical items obtainable from the antiquities system require not only the Greymoor chapter (which I purchased) but other chapters or DLCs as well. Malacath's band of brutality for instance, since this is the one I mentioned, requires Orsinium. On top of Greymoor.

spurned

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

That said - I am not trying to suggest Lerisa is one-dimensionally inhuman at all. She is a good person, essentially - loyal and brave, but she also strikes me as an "ends justify the means" kind of person, within limits. She is a pirate, after all. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post, but you seemed to suggest that just because she is devoted to her crew, she would automatically reject the relic (because it's too evil and she's too nice?) Personally I figured that she wouldn't have strong feelings about it one way or another, since it doesn't concern her or her crew directly, but they are still part of the Covenant and she has been known to do odd jobs to help its leaders, so a relic that would, theoretically, keep Covenant waters safe might look useful in her eyes.
That's just my interpretation.

Well I guess the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. My reasoning, faulty or not, is as follows. Someone who would give a sadist a taste of their own medicine (pun intended) and perhaps making a point of bringing about poetic justice would think twice before emulating the behaviour she just punished. It's not about being "too nice" (as one-dimensional trait you could find) it's rather not being a hypocrite. Which brings me to Jakarn. This quest really did subvert my expectations when the morally bankrupt character for 90% of his screen time was revealed as a big ol' softy. The person who saves her crew from having their bodies tortured is ok with a relic that tortures souls. While the dude that rationalises that "you can't steal from a thief" - even though the rightful owner of the stolen item is left robbed, imprisoned and waiting to die - suddenly sees the light.
I agree there is a certain degree of personal preference. Lerisa's voice actress was appealing. Her lines, few and far between, were funny. I am even willing to agree that I saw Jakar as her polar opposite: off putting and the situational humour attached to him was nothing to write home about. But the ideas that remain when you take away these surface features from these characters clashed, in my opinion, with their decision at the end of Carzog's Demise.
All is not lost though, I still have Master Kasan. Let's leave this senseless bloodshed behind. And sail the open seas together while I bask in your wind carried mane, you glorious feline!

VaranisArano

spurned wrote: »

adriant1978 wrote: »

This is straying a bit off the topic of the quest in Carzog's, but hey it's your thread ...

There are generally two schools of thought in role playing games: either you take your own personality, or some elements of it, and place yourself into the fantasy world, or you create characters totally or almost totally unrelated to you as a person and use them to tell a story.

Proponents of both types often seem to have difficulty understanding the other variety, with questions like "why would you want to play yourself? Don't you already do that in real life?" and "how can you relate to a character which has nothing of you in it?" cropping up.

Is there a right and a wrong approach? Not really, IMO. Some people just like the idea of giving themselves the chance to explore a fictional world, while others are living out something more like a movie director fantasy with their created characters as the actors.

You make absolute sense. However I take issue with the fact that the previous person has a very strong opinion for someone who claims he/she severed personal emotions to experience fabricated ones. And here lies the problem: you can "role play" something completely different but deep down that character is still filtered through your own personality. If you take an action uncharacteristic to you, even just to experience something new or for cathartic reasons, you will have a reaction. Which leads to my point: this person claimed he/she had some characters that supported Lerisa and others that did not. Clearly they (correct gender neutral pronoun?) identified more with the latter characters given their unequivocal comments.

Its always interesting watching people discover differing approaches to roleplaying for the first time.

I myself have my own opinions strongly informed by metaknowledge of the lore and psychology. My Vestige and my assassin have different views based on their situational knowledge and backstories.

Thus my Vestige's opinion of Meridia is rather high, due to the help Meridia granted during the Planemeld, whereas my personal opinion of Meridia is that she's a villain with good publicity, owing to my experience playing the Knights of the Nine DLC in Oblivion which my Vestige would have no knowledge of.

Incidentally, I have to wonder if that type of compartmentalization is more common to D&D players and authors? In my D&D groups, we're constantly managing in-character vs out-of-character knowledge and reactions when we play, so there tends to be a heavy distinction between self and character. When writing, we're often handling a large cast of characters, and unless it's self-insert fanfiction or autobiography, its generally a good thing to make them distinct from ourselves.

Ghanima_Atreides

spurned wrote: »

Well I guess the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. My reasoning, faulty or not, is as follows. Someone who would give a sadist a taste of their own medicine (pun intended) and perhaps making a point of bringing about poetic justice would think twice before emulating the behaviour she just punished. It's not about being "too nice" (as one-dimensional trait you could find) it's rather not being a hypocrite.

I see your point now, and why you consider Lerisa's decision to keep the relic to be out of character. I guess that to me personally, she is less of a righteous avenger and more a morally-flexible person whose actions depend on the situation. She punished Helene because she had targeted her ship and crew, things that mattered deeply to her (and she was devoted to) but I don't see that as proof that she would necessarily care what happens to the Covenant's enemies, particularly as she wouldn't be there to see it (out of sight, out of mind). Plus, judging by her dialogue, she seems to be under the impression that King Fahara'Jad could "use it responsibly" (whether you believe that to be possible or not), perhaps imagining that the mere possession of such a relic by the Covenant navy would deter enemy ships from attacking? Ultimately, I think, she is most interested in getting paid - which she mentions at the end of the quest and it comes up later as well.

But I grant that is just my interpretation/reasoning, and not the only possible one. So I'll agree to disagree.

I do have to mention some of your comments from your other posts however - namely my "unequivocal comments" which "clearly" prove that I personally think Lerisa is a monster and believe Helene should be given the antidote, so I sympathise with my characters that did so. I don't. I actually believe Helene had it coming, and am rather fond of Lerisa as a character, and if my wording seemed unequivocal it was just me trying to emphasise the fact that she does have a ruthless streak. It wasn't a moral judgement on the character.

And whether you believe it or not, I do hold my own views separate from those of my characters. Compartmentalisation, as VaranisArano put it. One of my favourite characters is a self-proclaimed Champion of Akatosh with a very strong "ends justify the means" approach to her problems and who makes some very morally questionable decisions in the name of the "greater good" if she believes they're justified. I disagree with many of the things she does, but it's a lot of fun to explore her motivations and the thought processes of someone who essentially has good intentions, but ambition and hubris gradually corrupt them.

spurned

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

I actually believe Helene had it coming, and am rather fond of Lerisa as a character, and if my wording seemed unequivocal it was just me trying to emphasise the fact that she does have a ruthless streak. It wasn't a moral judgement on the character.

And whether you believe it or not, I do hold my own views separate from those of my characters.

Umm... You see the impossibility of such a claim in the contradictory phrasing right? The connotation for the word "ruthless" is intrinsically a moral judgement. I said "avenging" I think and therefor I made a judgement of my own. But I'm not the one claiming I can separate my ego (in the psychoanalysis sense not the derogatory one) from my journey into fiction.
I can concede however to the rest of your latest comment. Mainly because you (unintentionally) pointed out that the script writers made the relic Lerisa's focal point. As a final rebuttal I have to point out that I started this thread because of this exact reason. And your ace up your sleeve is basically "her story makes sense if you read it backwards". We've come full circle.

spurned

VaranisArano wrote: »

When writing, we're often handling a large cast of characters, and unless it's self-insert fanfiction or autobiography, its generally a good thing to make them distinct from ourselves.

That's sensible. But with the risk of repeating myself, complete separation of self from whatever it is you create is impossible in my opinion. That's why authors and, more relevant to our discussion, game developers have distinct styles. It's even less likely for consumers with no artistic studies to make such a separation. Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just find it hard to believe.

adriant1978

spurned wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

When writing, we're often handling a large cast of characters, and unless it's self-insert fanfiction or autobiography, its generally a good thing to make them distinct from ourselves.

That's sensible. But with the risk of repeating myself, complete separation of self from whatever it is you create is impossible in my opinion. That's why authors and, more relevant to our discussion, game developers have distinct styles. It's even less likely for consumers with no artistic studies to make such a separation. Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just find it hard to believe.

This is a fair point, and as a roleplayer you often have to pause and ask yourself "is this what I would do or what my character would do?", but that doesn't mean one shouldn't make the effort to try and look at a situation from a character's viewpoint rather than your own.

“Knowing that a trap exists is the first step in avoiding it” – Frank Herbert, Dune

Ghanima_Atreides

spurned wrote: »

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

I actually believe Helene had it coming, and am rather fond of Lerisa as a character, and if my wording seemed unequivocal it was just me trying to emphasise the fact that she does have a ruthless streak. It wasn't a moral judgement on the character.

And whether you believe it or not, I do hold my own views separate from those of my characters.

Umm... You see the impossibility of such a claim in the contradictory phrasing right? The connotation for the word "ruthless" is intrinsically a moral judgement. I said "avenging" I think and therefor I made a judgement of my own. But I'm not the one claiming I can separate my ego (in the psychoanalysis sense not the derogatory one) from my journey into fiction.
I can concede however to the rest of your latest comment. Mainly because you (unintentionally) pointed out that the script writers made the relic Lerisa's focal point. As a final rebuttal I have to point out that I started this thread because of this exact reason. And your ace up your sleeve is basically "her story makes sense if you read it backwards". We've come full circle.

Okay, if that's your definition of "moral judgement". I used it as a descriptor. I can say that a character is ruthless (or kind, or loyal) without necessarily making an approving or disapproving statement about them, which you seem to insist I am doing. In fact, you've been making all sorts of assumptions about me and putting words in my mouth from the get-go, which frankly has gotten tiresome, so this will be the last thing I write on this topic.

As for the relic being Lerisa's focal point and her story making sense if you read it backwards...no. That's not what I was saying either. I was saying that 1) the relic is actually not all that important to Lerisa at all and 2) this all starts to become clearer if you take the story to its full conclusion (beyond Carzog's) which isn't, IMO, reading it backwards.

If what I'm trying to say is still unclear to you, I honestly don't see how I can make it any clearer. We have different interpretations of the character; it's really not a big deal.

VaranisArano

spurned wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

When writing, we're often handling a large cast of characters, and unless it's self-insert fanfiction or autobiography, its generally a good thing to make them distinct from ourselves.

That's sensible. But with the risk of repeating myself, complete separation of self from whatever it is you create is impossible in my opinion. That's why authors and, more relevant to our discussion, game developers have distinct styles. It's even less likely for consumers with no artistic studies to make such a separation. Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just find it hard to believe.

When I'm talking about compartmentalization, I'm not talking about a complete and utter separation of my self and subsuming myself completely in a character as if I become another person. Method acting works for some people, but I tend to do large casts when I write, so that gets hard.

I'm talking about an active process of role-playing on multiple levels. I'm reacting simultaneously as myself and through the "filters" I have in place that form my character, such as their backstory, their in-character knowledge, and their attitudes. Acting and reacting through those filters is an active, intentional process. Thus, I can intentionally roleplay in ways that are deliberately contrary to my own beliefs and out-of-character knowledge.

It might help to think of it as improv acting, which is what D&D style roleplaying essentially is. I create some guidelines and characteristics for a character, such as their race, backstory, and alignment (grossly simplified, alignment is good/evil and how the character reacts to authorities), and then I improv that character through whatever situations your Dungeon Master or video game dev throws at them. The more the character develops, the easier it gets to improv them, to the point that often experienced roleplayers don't have to consciously work through "What would this character think/do/say?" We just "know," because we've practiced acting out that role so much even though that character is still quite distinct from ourselves.


As stated, my major roleplaying experience is with D&D and I do think that's played a big part in why I've learned such a distinction between self and character. That distinction is really important in D&D for a lot of reasons, but that's another wall-o-text that I don't want to derail into if you aren't interested.

spurned

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

Okay, if that's your definition of "moral judgement". I used it as a descriptor. I can say that a character is ruthless (or kind, or loyal) without necessarily making an approving or disapproving statement about them, which you seem to insist I am doing. In fact, you've been making all sorts of assumptions about me and putting words in my mouth from the get-go, which frankly has gotten tiresome, so this will be the last thing I write on this topic.
[...]
If what I'm trying to say is still unclear to you, I honestly don't see how I can make it any clearer. We have different interpretations of the character; it's really not a big deal.

If I was unaccommodating it was simply because of your belief that your interpretation of a fictional character, that can be made into whatever the writers want, to be the better one. All the while claiming objectivity on a subjective matter with subjective tools, like your descriptors. I agree that I was too outspoken when I was replying to you because you set the tone. I was baited and I took it, for which I apologise. I wish you all the best.