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

spartaxoxo

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

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

Tanlorin was not introduced as a representative of non-binary people. The statement was "this is the first." They said that they were non-binary on stream and then a bunch of people reacted with anger and claims the character was a stereotype without knowing anything else about them.

I am a minority. I am well aware of the harm stereotypes can cause. But, seeing a LGBT character and immediately being outraged isn't that. And that is absolutely what happened with Tanlorin. I watched it in real time. We knew NOTHING about the character other than they were non-binary and had a unique relationship to soul magic. That's it. And immediately there were tons of posts decrying Tanlorin. People called Tanlorin garbage. Others openly stated a "controversial" gender shouldn't be included at all.

Necrotech_Master

Soarora wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think this is the bigger problem

more on topic, i also didnt really like the questline, and even without really going into lore specifics i thought it made absolutely no sense whatsoever

the whole experience was just not very enjoyable

its honestly tanlorin was a drastic divergence from the other companion, zerith-var was both better fleshed out as a character and had a much better storyline

Syldras

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Tanlorin was not introduced as a representative of non-binary people.

But as one of the very few officially nonbinary characters (I say "officially" because there might be many other characters we just don't know about, because it's never said in game what gender they have), Tanlorin is perceived as such, announced or not.

It would be exactly the same if there was a game where everyone is straight and then there's one gay character who is described as such, of course that one gay character would draw people's attention and if this one character is badly written, it causes harm. "Gay" can be replaced with any minority group, result is the same.

TheMajority

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

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

Tanlorin was not introduced as a representative of non-binary people. The statement was "this is the first." They said that they were non-binary on stream and then a bunch of people reacted with anger and claims the character was a stereotype without knowing anything else about them.

I am a minority. I am well aware of the harm stereotypes can cause. But, seeing a LGBT character and immediately being outraged isn't that. And that is absolutely what happened with Tanlorin. I watched it in real time. We knew NOTHING about the character other than they were non-binary and had a unique relationship to soul magic. That's it. And immediately there were tons of posts decrying Tanlorin. People called Tanlorin garbage. Others openly stated a "controversial" gender shouldn't be included at all.

speaking from both a minority perspective and a lgbtq+ perspective i think the outrage comes from how weird that it felt that this was the first thing that they did say about Tanlorin instead of introducing Tanlorin as a person they introduced them as an identity and it was uncomfortable

I remember once when I did get introduced as the first Japanese employee at a company and I felt so uncomfortable, it upset me and felt disrespectful to who I was aside of my race. especially also because I am mixed ethnicity. It came with a lot of expectations of who I was supposed to be and like and how I would think. I know it is not the same as gender identity but it draws a parallel.

spartaxoxo

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Tanlorin was not introduced as a representative of non-binary people.

But as one of the very few officially nonbinary characters (I say "officially" because there might be many other characters we just don't know about, because it's never said in game what gender they have), Tanlorin is perceived as such, announced or not.

It would be exactly the same if there was a game where everyone is straight and then there's one gay character who is described as such, of course that one gay character would draw people's attention and if this one character is badly written, it causes harm. "Gay" can be replaced with any minority group, result is the same.

Respectfully, that is a big part of my issue with the rhetoric. Minority characters are not allowed to just exist. They aren't allowed the freedom to be mediocre because it will be blamed on the minority audience. That's really not okay and I don't want to validate that.

No minority character should be expected to be a representative of their people. And it's not minorities fault if the character is trash. The characters is not trash because they made something for minorities, because "they checked a box". It is trash because they were lazy and used stereotypes.

I know they are treated that way anyway, especially with non-binary characters because there are so few. But that just means we need more of them, not that we should hold them to a different standard.

The ones that need to be held to account for bad writing is the writers. It's not the fault of people who want more inclusion and to see themselves represented on the screen. It's not the fault of the desire to be inclusive. And it's not the fault of the character's minority status.

It's great when writing for minority characters is fantastic. We all love fantastic writing and art. But, minorities should also get to be mediocre without that mediocrity blamed on inclusion or their minority status.

And that's the issue I take with the checkbox buzzword. It shifts the responsibility for bad writing onto minorities and inclusion. And it doesn't allow minority characters the freedom to just be mediocre which just encourages writers to not even bother to try.

Syldras

TheMajority wrote: »

I remember once when I did get introduced as the first Japanese employee at a company and I felt so uncomfortable, it upset me and felt disrespectful to who I was aside of my race. especially also because I am mixed ethnicity. It came with a lot of expectations of who I was supposed to be and like and how I would think. I know it is not the same as gender identity but it draws a parallel.

Sad to hear that also happens elsewhere. Remembers me of my school where they literally went through all classes to search for non-white students because they wanted to make a short advertising clip for the school and wanted to show how multicultural and progressive they were... First we didn't even know what it was about, we were just collected and gathered in one seperate room (I can remember it was me, a Mexican girl and a Vietnamese boy from my class, an Indian girl I distantly knew, and an unknown black girl from some other class). I was really angry, refused and asked them whether they think we were zoo animals. They didn't even understand... That was in 2005 or so.

Syldras

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Respectfully, that is a big part of my issue with the rhetoric. Minority characters are not allowed to just exist. They aren't allowed the freedom to be mediocre because it will be blamed on the minority audience. That's really not okay and I don't want to validate that.
No minority character should be expected to be a representative of their people.

But this is unfortunately how the masses perceive it. It doesn't matter whether we like that or not, it happens. That's why writers have to show decent care, having this problem in mind.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

And it's not minorities fault if the character is trash.

Who says this?

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The ones that need to be held to account for bad writing is the writers. It's not the fault of people who want more inclusion and to see themselves represented on the screen. It's not the fault of the desire to be inclusive. And it's not the fault of the character's minority status.

Who says this?

Erickson9610

Do you all suppose we'll get another non-binary Companion character somewhere down the line? How long would you suppose it'd be until then, assuming we continue to get 2 Companions per year?

spartaxoxo

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Respectfully, that is a big part of my issue with the rhetoric. Minority characters are not allowed to just exist. They aren't allowed the freedom to be mediocre because it will be blamed on the minority audience. That's really not okay and I don't want to validate that.
No minority character should be expected to be a representative of their people.

But this is unfortunately how the masses perceive it. It doesn't matter whether we like that or not, it happens. That's why writers have to show decent care, having this problem in mind.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

And it's not minorities fault if the character is trash.

Who says this?

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The ones that need to be held to account for bad writing is the writers. It's not the fault of people who want more inclusion and to see themselves represented on the screen. It's not the fault of the desire to be inclusive. And it's not the fault of the character's minority status.

Who says this?

We can ask writers to handle characters with care without validating that.

Lots of people say that. It's literally all over their social media and it's the exact type of rhetoric that the developer is decrying in their interview.

If you don't think that people don't blame bad writing on that with phrases like "woke" or "DEI" etc, then IDK what to tell you because I definitely cannot link that stuff here. I will say there were literally posts on this forum saying that "controversial genders" should not be included and by that they meant non-binary people.

Syldras

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Do you all suppose we'll get another non-binary Companion character somewhere down the line? How long would you suppose it'd be until then, assuming we continue to get 2 Companions per year?

2 companions per year really aren't much. Who knows, maybe if they see that monetizing them works well, they'll put more into the store in future?

TheMajority

Syldras wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

I remember once when I did get introduced as the first Japanese employee at a company and I felt so uncomfortable, it upset me and felt disrespectful to who I was aside of my race. especially also because I am mixed ethnicity. It came with a lot of expectations of who I was supposed to be and like and how I would think. I know it is not the same as gender identity but it draws a parallel.

Sad to hear that also happens elsewhere. Remembers me of my school where they literally went through all classes to search for non-white students because they wanted to make a short advertising clip for the school and wanted to show how multicultural and progressive they were... First we didn't even know what it was about, we were just collected and gathered in one seperate room (I can remember it was me, a Mexican girl and a Vietnamese boy from my class, an Indian girl I distantly knew, and an unknown black girl from some other class). I was really angry, refused and asked them whether they think we were zoo animals. They didn't even understand... That was in 2005 or so.

That hits home big time. The attitude of a treatment like these always comes with them getting so much confusion when you don't want it. They have a "why aren't you grateful we recognized you" attitude when the recognizing is for them to feel good about themself and not for who we are or academic accomplishment.

I did walk out of that company as well 2 month later and got a better job for my talents during 2020 when they never saw my face from home only my abilities. Felt good to be judged by my learning not through my face.

Bo0137

If a trait of a character has to be so intensively emphasized then it means the writers didn't have enough inspiration to write it.

I find it actually disrespectful to people who for various reasons feel unrepresented in real life to receive as a homage in the game a character that is badly written.

I genuinely feel empathy for LGBT+ people. In my opinion these efforts to forcefully push representations of the community/for the community in the media represent a disservice rather than a compliment or an aid. Specially because it is most probably driven by corporatives who don't care about these people at all and only want to profit.

spartaxoxo

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is definitely being dismissed.

I'm saddened that instead hearing this valid, nuanced opinions Bill Slavicsek went with journalist's narrative about people "claiming that their non-binary gender is out of place in TES Online's universe" which was never the case with it's criticism. The best "war" is won when you ignore the "opponent" and defend something none attacked it seems.

Frankly, even the idea that Tanlorin is a weapon seems like dismissal to me. The developer didn't create Tanlorin because of that. They are responding to rhetoric against non-binary people that immediately followed Tanlorin's announcement. I don't think it at all helps the conversation to dismiss discriminatory rhetoric as not really part of the conversation when developers make these types of statements. Because I have seen a LOT of thinly veiled anti-lgbt discrimination and other forms of discrimination get disguised as legitimate criticism by bad faith actors. I don't think anyone in this thread is doing that, but I also don't think it's helpful to pretend this thread exists in a vacuum while discussing an article where a developer responded to feedback that was much bigger than even the ESO forums.

Elsonso

TheMajority wrote: »

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

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

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

This is how I see it, as well. I mean, it was pretty clear from the live stream that they had an agenda. I'm not sure why they are concerned what people think about it and say about it. They spent the money to realize Tanlorin and make it happen. Own it.

"No character in the world blinks an eye or thinks there's anything unusual about meeting the baker and his husband, the serving woman and her wife, or to have Naryu and Jakarn flirt with you, regardless of your character's gender."

This is the writer who was responsible for integrating the character into that game world. While the concept of a non-binary character fits into the world, and no one should blink an eye, apparently, this specific non-binary character does not fit and people are blinking?

I have to take everyone's word for it. The writer didn't say anything that contradicts these claims, but it was a short interview. I have not experienced the character, and due to the extra cost and the fact that I am happy with my current companions, I am not going to go get them just to see the writing for myself.

Anyway... My suggestion for future special characters like this is to take the extra time to fully integrate them into the game. Make them a natural part of the game that they want to be. This needs to happen even if it dulls the message of whatever agenda drives it. They can go out with press releases and marketing material fully explaining the agenda to compensate.

Erickson9610

Syldras wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

Do you all suppose we'll get another non-binary Companion character somewhere down the line? How long would you suppose it'd be until then, assuming we continue to get 2 Companions per year?

2 companions per year really aren't much. Who knows, maybe if they see that monetizing them works well, they'll put more into the store in future?

It really doesn't matter whether the Companions are separate from the Chapter or not. It's a safe bet that since there's a new section for Companions (that isn't a subcategory next to the Assistants subcategory) that more Companions may be sold in the Crown Store in the future.

What I want to know is if we'll ever get another non-binary Companion character like Tanlorin, who is possibly improved with the feedback that players are offering here. Does ZOS feel the need to make another non-binary Companion at some point in the future, or do they think Tanlorin is enough? Is next year "too soon" for another non-binary Companion?

Syldras

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lots of people say that. It's literally all over their social media and it's the exact type of rhetoric that the developer is decrying in their interview.
If you don't think that people don't blame bad writing on that with phrases like "woke" or "DEI" etc, then IDK what to tell you because I definitely cannot link that stuff here. I will say there were literally posts on this forum saying that "controversial genders" should not be included and by that they meant non-binary people.

"Social" media is a cess pool, that's nothing new. That bigots exist, no matter whether they're racist, homophobic or transphobic, is sadly also nothing new. Ignoring this nonsense would take power away from these people. People who do nothing than spewing insults just because don't contribute to a serious discourse anyway.

The thing I dislike about this interview I linked is that it looks like criticism about Tanlorin is generally labelled "LGBT-phobic" and just dismissed without even thinking about it further. It feels like people who criticize the writing are generally not taken seriously, even if they have good reasons to voice their opinion about this topic, for example because they are LGBT themselves.

spartaxoxo

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lots of people say that. It's literally all over their social media and it's the exact type of rhetoric that the developer is decrying in their interview.
If you don't think that people don't blame bad writing on that with phrases like "woke" or "DEI" etc, then IDK what to tell you because I definitely cannot link that stuff here. I will say there were literally posts on this forum saying that "controversial genders" should not be included and by that they meant non-binary people.

"Social" media is a cess pool, that's nothing new. That bigots exist, no matter whether they're racist, homophobic or transphobic, is sadly also nothing new. Ignoring this nonsense would take power away from these people. People who do nothing than spewing insults just because don't contribute to a serious discourse anyway.

The thing I dislike about this interview I linked is that it looks like criticism about Tanlorin is generally labelled "LGBT-phobic" and just dismissed without even thinking about it further. It feels like people who criticize the writing are generally not taken seriously, even if they have good reasons to voice their opinion about this topic, for example because they are LGBT themselves.

I used to believe in the ignoring the trolls. In US social media, we tried the "ignore the trolls" before and it just allowed their ideas to grow unchecked and become way more widespread. I think calling it out for what it is and acknowledging it is important.

I do share your frustration with more legitimate feedback getting lumped in. Which is why I really didn't want to comment on that feedback. But, I also don't want to let anti-lgbt rhetoric (in this case against non-binary people) hide behind legitimate criticism. And I felt that the dismissal of the dev could allow for that. The dev is speaking the truth, there was a lot of it.

Anyway, I'll digress from here.

Heren

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Respectfully, that is a big part of my issue with the rhetoric. Minority characters are not allowed to just exist. They aren't allowed the freedom to be mediocre because it will be blamed on the minority audience. That's really not okay and I don't want to validate that.

No minority character should be expected to be a representative of their people. And it's not minorities fault if the character is trash. The characters is not trash because they made something for minorities, because "they checked a box". It is trash because they were lazy and used stereotypes.

I know they are treated that way anyway, especially with non-binary characters because there are so few. But that just means we need more of them, not that we should hold them to a different standard.

The ones that need to be held to account for bad writing is the writers. It's not the fault of people who want more inclusion and to see themselves represented on the screen. It's not the fault of the desire to be inclusive. And it's not the fault of the character's minority status.

It's great when writing for minority characters is fantastic. We all love fantastic writing and art. But, minorities should also get to be mediocre without that mediocrity blamed on inclusion or their minority status.

And that's the issue I take with the checkbox buzzword. It shifts the responsibility for bad writing onto minorities and inclusion. And it doesn't allow minority characters the freedom to just be mediocre which just encourages writers to not even bother to try.

I can understand that you're angry, but in a way, you seems to replicate some reactions from the article quoted before. It really seems, to me at last - and to others too I think - that you just can't criticize anything about Tanlorin and other minorities characters, because it will almost instantly be perceived as criticizing the minority in question.

I totaly agree with you, that a character belonging to a minority is not a representative of that minority, and the quality of the story of these characters as nothing to do with the minority - like you said, it's certainly not minorities fault if the character is trash.

And I also agree with you that I don't like the checkbox buzzword - any buzzword, in fact : most often than not, they just seem to be some kind of rallying cry that people shout without thinking about it, without thinking by themselves.

But in the same time, the writing of a character, any character, come from somewhere, and it also come somewhere - in this case, in a videogame company. It's most likely almost impossible to know exactly why, how Tanlorin came to be, but I think it's not attacking any minority to ask : is the writing bad because some people push for a character belonging to a certain minority - because more efforts where put into, say, raising awareness about that minority and their revendications in our world rather than writing a good story fiting the elder scrolls world ?

Of course, this is not a reason to blame or attack any minority, nor the people that wan't to be include on videogames and other medias. But creating a character, writing a story, is I think a complexe process that involve a lot of people, and a lot of different reasons behind that process. Reasons that can legitimely, I think, be questioned - not assumed, but still questioned.

I agree with you that it's not the fault of a minority if the writing is bad, it's not the fault of their desire to be present in a story, but I think it's not just 'blame the writers'. And in the same time, 'blame the minority' is also deeply stupid. And, in this situation especially, I don't think that playing 'who's to blame' as much importance - but you can still try to point out reasons why the writing is bad, and try as much as possible to avoid assuming reasons why it's bad. Wich I think this thread did pretty well.

I sadly don't think that this thread will change anything on ZoS side, and I also saldy think that a lot of people are more interested with overreaction, inflated outrage and more generaly bad faith - from any side, that's human issues. But I hope we can still exchange our views, explained our thoughts, and try to understand each others better.

SkaiFaith

Reading all this I found a word that made me think: "stereotypes"... If stereotypes are bad writing, isn't much of Elder Scrolls "bad"? (My point is that it is not, or at least it's generally accepted).

Nords and Orcs are "big muscle guys with little brains"
Evely is a "dumb blondy"
A certain big villain is a "white old man seeking power masked by philanthropist"

I mean... It's certainly not the first time a stereotype gets pushed.
I don't know where to go with this realization but I'll throw it in here for considerations...

spartaxoxo

Heren wrote: »

I can understand that you're angry, but in a way, you seems to replicate some reactions from the article quoted before. It really seems, to me at last - and to others too I think - that you just can't criticize anything about Tanlorin and other minorities characters, because it will almost instantly be perceived as criticizing the minority in question.

Absolutely not the case that minority characters can't be criticized. There's a big difference between things like "forced diversity, woke, DEI, checklist, etc" or "Tanlorin's announcement should have been treated differently than every other companion" which I have already explained my issue with and things like "Tanlorin trades too much into stereotypes, Tanlorin's dislike of other people reading is too controlling," etc.

There are some legitimate criticisms in here and I tried not to discuss them specifically so they didn't get lumped in with what I had to say about the commentary on the article.

Syldras

SkaiFaith wrote: »

Reading all this I found a word that made me think: "stereotypes"... If stereotypes are bad writing, isn't much of Elder Scrolls "bad"? (My point is that it is not, or at least it's generally accepted).
Nords and Orcs are "big muscle guys with little brains"
Evely is a "dumb blondy"
A certain big villain is a "white old man seeking power masked by philanthropist"
I mean... It's certainly not the first time a stereotype gets pushed.
I don't know where to go with this realization but I'll throw it in here for considerations...

It's not like stereotypical depictions of other characters haven't been criticized before.

Although I think one "dumb blondy" is probably not a problem if there is a majority of blonde characters in the game who are not dumb. I mean, it's natural, individuals who are coincidentally both blonde and dumb also do exist in reality, so why would that combination not be present in a game, too? It would be different if all blondes in the game were dumb.

I think it's even more interesting to look at the depiction of groups instead of individuals. And when it comes to that, yes, TES does often rely on clichés. The drunken "vikings" of Skyrim. Or putting the Thieves Guild chapter into a Redguard zone like it's an Ali Baba story (although, to be fair, the Arabian Nights stories are no Western invention, but indeed an originally Arabian collection of folk tales). It's folkloristic and stereotypical, yes. But is it malevolent? As a comparison: I live in Europe. Everyone here knows stereotypes about people from other European countries and sometimes people people play with them or use them teasingly with each other. I don't think most people really believe in them.

Which reminds me, I also had an interesting discussion with a fellow Easterner once about how all strongly Asian-influenced cultures in TES (in particular Khajiit, Dunmer and Akaviri) are non-human and depicted as mysterious and exotic. I personally don't mind, by the way. It's just another aspect where it shows that the Bethesda is a Western company and who made the lore up made it up from his cultural point of view (and that's fine, since, as I wrote earlier, we're all influenced by our cultural upbringing).

When it now comes to stereotypical depiction of minorities, that feels different to me. Especially if it's minorities who a lot of people still aren't familiar with. When it comes to dumb, drunken, burly Nord, everyone knows it's a cliché. They don't believe all Scandinavians are like that in reality. But there are many people who don't closely know any LGBT person in reality and don't know much about the whole topic, so a badly written media depiction might not be immediately recognized as just being bad writing with no relation to reality.

ArchangelIsraphel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It is definitely being dismissed.

From my personal perspective, it isn't dismissive in the least. It's a diverse group of LGTBQ+ people choosing to deal with the problem of dissent in their own way based on their lived experience and personal beliefs. Those experiences wont always reflect what another person might want to hear from us, but it does not make them dismissive.

For example, you do not agree entirely with the sentiments of this thread, but I do not feel that you are dismissing them simply because you do not agree. I respect you for engaging with us in a civil and constructive way which allows us to reconsider our thoughts on the matter.

However, I don't think there is a single person here who hasn't acknowledged that this negative commentary exists in one way or another, even if we haven't brought it into the discussion until now. We definitely know, and we hear the dev's concerns. A lot of us just chose not to engage with negative commenters because time and experience has shown us that there are different ways to deal with it.

Refusal to engage is not the same thing as dismissal. To me, dismissal implies that we don't care at all. Which, to be frank, I don't care about the opinions of protesters or let them change or influence me- but I do care about those they hurt with their commentary and the long term effects of the actions of both sides of the argument.

And let me be clear- for some of us, these things are always on our minds, and have been for decades- especially when the protests aren't just online or on forums about fictional characters, but when they effect us in the real world. On college campuses, in religious establishments, and on the streets. The things you read online are twice as disturbing when they are a very loud and very real threat to your physical person. We're doing anything but dismissing them. We're expressing concern exactly because none of these problems exist in a vacuum.

There are absolutely some truths in what the dev said, and while I do agree that I should treat their perspectives with compassion, I think questioning certain motivations and desiring clarification is valid. I think our fears are just as fair as the concerns the dev expressed. I would be completely willing to read further writings or interviews by them in order to gain perspective on the personal experiences which have influenced their decision making.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I used to believe in the ignoring the trolls. In US social media, we tried the "ignore the trolls" before and it just allowed their ideas to grow unchecked and become way more widespread. I think calling it out for what it is and acknowledging it is important.

I do share your frustration with more legitimate feedback getting lumped in. Which is why I really didn't want to comment on that feedback. But, I also don't want to let anti-lgbt rhetoric (in this case against non-binary people) hide behind legitimate criticism. And I felt that the dismissal of the dev could allow for that. The dev is speaking the truth, there was a lot of it.

I admit to a certain amount of soul weariness when it comes to this. Calling it out is always important, but when you've repeated yourself for many, many years to people whom you know are not receptive, sometimes the healthiest thing to do is to focus on living your best life in accordance to your values and personal truths. When I was young, I was a very angry about the injustices faced by myself and those like me, and in spite of being raised to listen and discuss matters with others, I admit to engaging in some very argumentative behavior I'm not exactly proud of.

It didn't get me, or those like me, anywhere. Then I began asking myself what I can actually do to create the world I want to see, beyond arguing with those who protested my way of life. These days, I prefer to turn my focus to assisting people who have been affected by trauma, anxiety, and chronic health conditions. My own mental health journey eventually lead me to working closely with therapists to train horses for equine assisted therapy. This volunteer work is my way of pushing back against the effects of hate, abuse, intolerance, and the stigmatization of those with mental health conditions. Several of the people I've met in the course of this work were also LGTBQ+ and had been negatively impacted by homophobia.

Listening to their stories and having lived through my own, I suppose I simply do not want to see other LGTBQ+ individuals sacrificing hours of their time and years of their lives to the bitterness I once felt. Especially when we can channel that anger into helping one another (and the world at large) rather than arguing with opposing forces. That doesn't mean that one has to participate in volunteer work or any kind of activism. It can be as simple as showing kindness and understanding to a partner or a friend who is struggling, or donating to organizations that help LGTBQ+ kids and teens whose families have ousted them.

It is, of course, not for me to tell others what to do or how to feel, because those emotions are absolutely valid. Sometimes, we do need to engage in those discussions, to defend ourselves, or correct a false perspective. But if we are to create change, then sometimes it has to begin with our own reactions.

It's up to the older generations who have been fighting this battle for many years to offer a hand up to younger generations who might be observing our behavior, the hand we sometimes didn't have, and that can mean proffering a different path than the one we took in the past.

That's my stand against rhetoric. It isn't better, or worse, than another's, but it is one I believe in with my whole heart.

Ingel_Riday

I wish I had something substantial or meaningful to add to the continuing discourse, but I'm just too impressed and grateful.

Thank you to everyone for your thoughtful, insightful posts. I genuinely enjoyed reading them and getting your perspectives, and I learned some new things along the way. I appreciate it a great deal.

Wishing you all the very best!

TheMajority

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I admit to a certain amount of soul weariness when it comes to this. Calling it out is always important, but when you've repeated yourself for many, many years to people whom you know are not receptive, sometimes the healthiest thing to do is to focus on living your best life in accordance to your values and personal truths. When I was young, I was a very angry about the injustices faced by myself and those like me, and in spite of being raised to listen and discuss matters with others, I admit to engaging in some very argumentative behavior I'm not exactly proud of.

Felt that deep down. i been to that dark spot. Glad you found your way forward from it to. still leaves an exhausted feel. it's not avoidance of critic it's just not wanting to give them any more of your spirit to stomp on.

meditation help me to stay in the present and see the goodness in my life and how to help my kids face it themself when they discover their own identities whichever it could be.

SpaceElf

Am I honestly the only one who genuinely enjoyed this companion and quest line? lol

I just thought it was fun.

Syldras

@ArchangelIsraphel Thank you for the interesting insights about the situation in your region. I have to admit: It sounds very alien to me. Compared to my experiences in my country, it sounds like you're not talking about today, but about the 1960's or early 1970's or so. No ordinary person here would ever thinking about ousting their children for being gay, LGBT organizations mostly do safer sex education, the only demography who might cause trouble on the streets for gay people is a certain type of uneducated young men who think it's cool to act brute-ish (which they confuse with "being masculine") and play gangster. As someone who is 100% unapologetic about his way of life (in any aspect, not only my sexual orientation), these are the only types I ever got in conflicts with.

And I did - in the early 2000's, when I had my first relationship, and of course enforced my right to hold hands with my partner and kiss him in public (and did whatever I wanted and dressed how ever I wanted, which wasn't exactly the mainstream way), we were in fights every single day. Literally. Couldn't ride the train downtown for 5 minutes without some idiot saying something stupid. Our reactions to insults and slurs was either to insult them even harder (I'm good at that) or to burst out in laughter which usually caused so much confusion that they stopped. When things got physical... Well, let's say it certainly helps that I snap when someone attacks my partner. It's not nice and I'm glad that nowadays harassment by homophobes has become a very rare occurance because I certainly prefer calm and peace over fights (but of course, if it would happen again today - I'm ready), but back then it was neccessary. It was ugly, but just neccessary. If someone has an archaic mindset centered about who's the "most masculine" and "the strongest", the only thing that works is to show them who's stronger by their own methods. To teach people a lesson (and in this case the main lesson was "Gay men aren't weak or helpless"), you have to use their language. I see people wanting to be "civilized" and explain to such people how their behaviour was "maybe not really nice" - they are only perceived as weak and only get laughed at. Reasoning works with relatively educated and generally rather law-abiding people who are willing to change their mind. It does not work with people who value aggression and strength and think breaking the law and intimidating people is "cool" and "manly".

Anyway, this was the front I was fighting at for my whole youth and young adulthood, and I sometimes wonder how much it has shaped me. I've been called belligerent quite often. Is this what I naturally am or was I shaped by the need for it? I don't know. Can't say it's the worst outcome, though. It has made me completely unafraid of conflicts and so I also interfere if I see other people are harassed, be it a kid getting bullied or a woman getting pestered by someone. That said, these experiences might also cause me to not quite emotionally relate to how other people are upset about comparably minor issues like what nonsense some drooling imbecile is writing online.

Long story short: We're all shaped by our culture, our upbringing and our experiences.

ArchangelIsraphel

@Syldras The US can be a very different place from state to state in regards to these issues, but there are still older generations (and younger ones too, which saddens me) in every state who will behave as though they are still living in the 1960's or early 1970's, before being LGTBQ+ was starting to become decriminalized (religion can play a big role in that, unfortunately)

I'm fortunate enough to live in an extremely progressive state where it is now much rarer to see LGTBQ+ youths being rejected by their families. But when I was a teenager in the early 2000's, before lawmakers finally legalized gay marriage in my state, it was far more common. The push back I personally received was from those outside of my family- teachers, religious leaders, and peers, and in worst case scenarios, protesters. My own family was very supportive of me, and of my partner and friends, whom they welcomed with open arms.

It varies widely here, depending on who you are, where you live in the US, and so many other factors. There are some who have lived in absolute peace and acceptance, especially these days, and that makes me very happy. But there are still others, in other states, who continue to face the same issues I did when I was young. And we still see protests happen in those places.

I'm happy to say my life with my partner is relatively peaceful now, but knowing that the lives of others is not is something I constantly think of.

If it seems like I'm getting off topic to others- I feel like it's important to share a bit of background with the devs and people who want to help and represent us. I want them to know where my feelings and concerns come from. I want them to know why I might seem over cautious, wary, and always alert concerning these subjects. Most of all, I want them to understand why TESO and the TES universe feels like a safe haven to me, and why the game world being the way it is means so much to myself and my partner.

I also want to thank you, Syldras, for sharing your own personal perspectives regarding your experiences in your own country. Knowing what another has lived through is always allows me to broaden my outlook on the world at large.

or to burst out in laughter which usually caused so much confusion that they stopped

This, right here. It's literally why someone can call me anything they like on here, and I'll behave like I'm "collecting achievements". I've heard worse, and found myself able to laugh in peoples faces while they made themselves look rather silly for trying to insult me. I try to mitigate it in order to make my intentions clear to others, but sometimes, it's unavoidable.

Can't say it's the worst outcome, though. It has made me completely unafraid of conflicts and so I also interfere if I see other people are harassed, be it a kid getting bullied or a woman getting pestered by someone.

I absolutely respect this. Needless to say it resonates with me, as I feel the same way about intervening with violence and protecting my partner and anyone else that needs help.

SpaceElf

Ingel_Riday wrote: »

TLDR: I don’t understand the character motivations behind Wisteria’s betrayal. It makes no sense to me.
___________________________________________
I’ll be blunt: I was not a big fan of the Tanlorin quest chain, at all. Once I got past my cringing, though… I was able to make sense of most of it.

Except the Wisteria betrayal. I just thoroughly can’t make any sense of it.

“I joined the Cey-Thalmor for us, Tan! So that we can make a world where we can be together!” - Wisteria, Tan's best friend and lover.

My initial thoughts: well… huh? What? The Summerset Isles portrayed in this game are super-progressive. They’re full of openly LGBTQIA+ individuals, marriage is between anyone who wants to get married, the islands have full open borders to anyone who wants to migrate there, there is absolutely no slavery or soul-sucking to be seen, and the few high elves that you do meet who espouse Altmer supremacy and/or xenophobia are either:
- Treated like bumbling fools.
- Openly portrayed as evil / misguided.
- Straight up killed as opponents.

How can Wisteria and Tan not be together, exactly? I mean, even the villains in their private correspondence refuse to misgender Tan. You know, because they may be murderous extremists who like to torture people with ice magic… but they’re not THAT evil. The inner thoughts of Tan’s disapproving family are perfectly cool with Tan’s identity politics. Nary a misgender in any of their private thoughts, which Tan reads via magic, because while they might be jerks… they’re not THAT evil. I don't think anyone would care if these two eloped.

So, what’s the deal here?

Took a long while, but I finally got it. In effect, the writing is bad. Extremely, comically bad. It’s intentionally using language that evokes the feel of "society ostracized me because I’m LGBTQIA+," but actually… Tanlorin is a Hulkynd. The writing didn’t bother using said term at any point because it might lessen the intentional conflation of fantasy with modern day politics, but yeah… nothing in this entire questline has ANYTHING to do with gender studies or identities or any of the hot topics of our day, other than Tanlorin being made a they/them. This quest chain is based on a far older issue. On a far older story template. It's a caste-system tale, masquerading as something more evocative to modern audiences.

The crux of Wisteria’s betrayal is that Tanlorin is one of the Hulkynds, which are:

…Altmeri children who are abandoned by their parents at a young age for being born with physical imperfections or deformities. These "Broken Children" live as outcasts, as those without family are not even recognized as a member of Altmeri society. As associating yourself with a Hulkynd is seen as shameful, Hulkynds struggle to even survive in Summerset. Even something like a simple facial deformity in a child's face can cause them to be abandoned and ostracized. - R/ElderscrollsLore

Tanlorin can’t do magic right. Family members tried to help with the magic tattoos and therapies, but none of these really took. Tanlorin’s magic is strong, but unstable and chaotic. It’s not safe. The family ultimately gave up and dumped Tanlorin, who is now an outcast in Altmer society. Hulkynd status. They basically made Tanlorin an untouchable (Dalit).

“But Ingel, you jerk… I never saw the term Hulkynd mentioned once in the whole quest chain.”

I KNOW. It never was. It’s never actually mentioned, at all, because it would lessen the conflation of fantasy and modern politics. This is bad, agenda-laden writing. It's intentionally sloppy.

But back to Wisteria. So… Wisteria clearly realized that The Garland Ring secret society was never going to achieve equality for Hulkynds, and that she would never be able to be with Tan in general Altmer society (2nd Era Altmer don’t care that you’re in a LGBTQIA+ relationship, but dating a Hulkynd? Disgusting). So, she decided to join the Cey-Thalmor to make it happen.

Huh? As we’ve established, general Altmer society might be super-progressive sexually and racially, but it does not like Hulkynds or Apraxics. It might tolerate these people, but only barely. The Thalmor, who are an extremely conservative branch of Altmer society, would like these people still LESS. The Cey-Thalmor are supposed to be an even more extreme offshoot of the Thalmor. You know, a group so extreme that it would make the average bigoted Thalmor member go, “woah… dude, chill. That’s a lot, man. Wow. I don’t like Argonians, Bretons, Hulkynds, or Apraxics either, but… bleh. You need some help! Be better!”

Why would Wisteria think that these people would help Hulkynds? What is going on here? Are we working off the idea that if you go too extremely in one political direction, you’ll just loop around and come out on the other end? This is the WORST faction to join if you are trying to get equality for your outcast them-friend. It’s dumb.

“If you get in my way, tan, I’ll end you!”

Yeah, I joined this faction only because of my love for you, to fight for your rights (not as a LGBTQIA+ member, even though it comes across that way intentionally. As a Hulkynd), and you are my main motivation for everything I’m doing. My heart and soul. But, if you get in the way of what I’m doing for us and our relationship, I’ll kill you and end our relationship.

It’s so dumb. I don’t understand it. I’m just utterly flabbergasted. The more I think about it, the more I hate it. Oi vei. Nonsensical.

Tan isn't Hulkynd. Hulkynds are thrown out at a *young* age due to obvious deficiencies or defects. Tan was raised and attempts were made to contain the magicka problem they had. This doesn't classify her as a hulkynd. The story does work logically, although it does stretch some stuff. And it's tempting to view a culture as a monolith, but people in a given society are way more complex than that. This, (admittedly ham-fisted) story seems to be attempting to add depth to a rigid outsider view on how Summerset Altmer conduct their lives. Clearly, this group was formed because they were tired of the status quo. That does make sense to me.