NPC + Disabled Characters

WhiteCoatSyndrome

Cardhwion wrote: »

Fantalior wrote: »

A long time ago, I started a discussion about why there are no children in TESO, and I understand the argument that it's a war-torn land, and the age restriction doesn't allow for them, even as unassailable characters like in Skyrim.

But one could at least introduce war-torn or disabled characters as NPCs, for example, a merchant missing an arm or leg. That would also fit well with the arrow-in-the-knee story you hear everywhere. Eye patches and nasty scars have been in the game since the beginning. I don't think a medieval fantasy world would benefit from a one-legged beggar on the side of the road who you can give gold to... If you're in a certain guild, he turns out to be a contact who distributes quests. And then rewards me with gold for completing quests.

What do you think?

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh. The no children policiy is logical, because you can kill innocents, and if players were able to slaughter children, the game would cause controversy or maybe even banned in some places. So that's a good point.

I honestly do not see what see what your suggestion would do to improve the game. To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere, where you have to help wounded veterans of your faction, or give you a one-handed companion who still fights. (Think of Walther in the Waltherilied or something similar).

Counterpoint: if they implemented it for NPCs they could do cosmetics for PCs, and then we can have more variety in our pirate designs. 🏴‍☠️

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Fantalior wrote: »

A long time ago, I started a discussion about why there are no children in TESO, and I understand the argument that it's a war-torn land, and the age restriction doesn't allow for them, even as unassailable characters like in Skyrim.

But one could at least introduce war-torn or disabled characters as NPCs, for example, a merchant missing an arm or leg. That would also fit well with the arrow-in-the-knee story you hear everywhere. Eye patches and nasty scars have been in the game since the beginning. I don't think a medieval fantasy world would benefit from a one-legged beggar on the side of the road who you can give gold to... If you're in a certain guild, he turns out to be a contact who distributes quests. And then rewards me with gold for completing quests.

What do you think?

Healing magic exists so this is why these type of characters don't. This isn't the 'real world'.

Cardhwion

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

Cardhwion wrote: »

Fantalior wrote: »

A long time ago, I started a discussion about why there are no children in TESO, and I understand the argument that it's a war-torn land, and the age restriction doesn't allow for them, even as unassailable characters like in Skyrim.

But one could at least introduce war-torn or disabled characters as NPCs, for example, a merchant missing an arm or leg. That would also fit well with the arrow-in-the-knee story you hear everywhere. Eye patches and nasty scars have been in the game since the beginning. I don't think a medieval fantasy world would benefit from a one-legged beggar on the side of the road who you can give gold to... If you're in a certain guild, he turns out to be a contact who distributes quests. And then rewards me with gold for completing quests.

What do you think?

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh. The no children policiy is logical, because you can kill innocents, and if players were able to slaughter children, the game would cause controversy or maybe even banned in some places. So that's a good point.

I honestly do not see what see what your suggestion would do to improve the game. To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere, where you have to help wounded veterans of your faction, or give you a one-handed companion who still fights. (Think of Walther in the Waltherilied or something similar).

Counterpoint: if they implemented it for NPCs they could do cosmetics for PCs, and then we can have more variety in our pirate designs. 🏴‍☠️

I shall honestly admit that I had no clue that pirate designs were a thing. But you are right: cosmetics would work, no matter whether or not they use them for NPCs.

Syldras

Cardhwion wrote: »

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh.

Atmosphere. It would seem more serious and you'd actually get the feeling that there's a war going on, with all the horrible things that causes. Yes, we see war refugees in some towns, and also fighting and pillaging in some quest areas, but seeing people missing an arm or a leg would add to that. Maybe they should even make a few quests around what that means - like people not being able to feed their family anymore and getting into serious problem because of that.

Cardhwion wrote: »

To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere

From my point of view, showing the reality of war has nothing to do with diversity measures, if you mean that with "look we have disabled characters, too".

Dark_Lord_Kuro

Because it would be a waste of time and resourses

Syldras

Dark_Lord_Kuro wrote: »

Because it would be a waste of time and resourses

And the 930th glowing, exploding, sparkling pet is much more useful for the game? Because those cost development time, too.

Danikat

Cardhwion wrote: »

Fantalior wrote: »

A long time ago, I started a discussion about why there are no children in TESO, and I understand the argument that it's a war-torn land, and the age restriction doesn't allow for them, even as unassailable characters like in Skyrim.

But one could at least introduce war-torn or disabled characters as NPCs, for example, a merchant missing an arm or leg. That would also fit well with the arrow-in-the-knee story you hear everywhere. Eye patches and nasty scars have been in the game since the beginning. I don't think a medieval fantasy world would benefit from a one-legged beggar on the side of the road who you can give gold to... If you're in a certain guild, he turns out to be a contact who distributes quests. And then rewards me with gold for completing quests.

What do you think?

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh. The no children policiy is logical, because you can kill innocents, and if players were able to slaughter children, the game would cause controversy or maybe even banned in some places. So that's a good point.

I honestly do not see what see what your suggestion would do to improve the game. To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere, where you have to help wounded veterans of your faction, or give you a one-handed companion who still fights. (Think of Walther in the Waltherilied or something similar).

Like a lot of things it's a way of making the world seem more alive by giving characters more variety and making them seem more like actual people with varied lives and experiences and less like 1 dimensional NPCs who only exist to serve a function in your story.

IMO Guild Wars 2 is an example of a game which does it well. There's characters with prosthetic limbs or missing an eye where it's not really mentioned at all and others where the prosthetic and/or the event that lead to needing it are an important part of their backstory and inform how they act and feel about current situations, and some who get injured during the story itself. There's one character who can't speak and uses sign-language instead (translated by one of her companions for people who don't know sign language, like the player character), and at least a few who are hard of hearing or Deaf which makes conversations with them different to usual, but otherwise doesn't come up, it's just a bit of character development, like giving some of them families or hobbies they mention even if it's not directly relevant to what you're doing.

There's also a main character (Taimi) whose disability is a plot point in various ways. She has a degenerative condition which means she can't walk fast or very far and which will probably kill her eventually. That's used as justification for the player needing to do things for her, but more importantly her research into both prosthetics and other alternatives and new types of healing magic help drive the wider plot. Yes that game has healing magic too, but the lore isn't as simplistic and limiting as some people seem to think The Elder Scrolls is, so it's not as simple as "healing magic exists, end of discussion". Everything in the Guild Wars universe is magical, so knowing all about magic and all the ways to use it would be like someone knowing all of science in real life - it doesn't happen. New types of magic can be discovered or invented but they have their own limitations and drawbacks and may take more than one lifetime to perfect.

And yes it also opens up the option for players to have more cosmetics to customise their characters. As well as eye patches like we already have in ESO there's both mechanical 'pirate' style prosthetics like a wooden leg and hook hand, and magitech ones based on the game's lore.

dinokstrunz

NPC pride month

Syldras

dinokstrunz wrote: »

NPC pride month

Could you elaborate?

Cardhwion

Syldras wrote: »

Cardhwion wrote: »

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh.

Atmosphere. It would seem more serious and you'd actually get the feeling that there's a war going on, with all the horrible things that causes. Yes, we see war refugees in some towns, and also fighting and pillaging in some quest areas, but seeing people missing an arm or a leg would add to that. Maybe they should even make a few quests around what that means - like people not being able to feed their family anymore and getting into serious problem because of that.

Cardhwion wrote: »

To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere

From my point of view, showing the reality of war has nothing to do with diversity measures, if you mean that with "look we have disabled characters, too".

This is a game, not a documentary. If I want the reality of war, I can volunteer at any orginasation that is helping Ukrainians, or simply open the appropriate news portal. I don't see any reason to drag that into relaxation acitivities.

Cardhwion

Danikat wrote: »

Cardhwion wrote: »

Fantalior wrote: »

A long time ago, I started a discussion about why there are no children in TESO, and I understand the argument that it's a war-torn land, and the age restriction doesn't allow for them, even as unassailable characters like in Skyrim.

But one could at least introduce war-torn or disabled characters as NPCs, for example, a merchant missing an arm or leg. That would also fit well with the arrow-in-the-knee story you hear everywhere. Eye patches and nasty scars have been in the game since the beginning. I don't think a medieval fantasy world would benefit from a one-legged beggar on the side of the road who you can give gold to... If you're in a certain guild, he turns out to be a contact who distributes quests. And then rewards me with gold for completing quests.

What do you think?

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh. The no children policiy is logical, because you can kill innocents, and if players were able to slaughter children, the game would cause controversy or maybe even banned in some places. So that's a good point.

I honestly do not see what see what your suggestion would do to improve the game. To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere, where you have to help wounded veterans of your faction, or give you a one-handed companion who still fights. (Think of Walther in the Waltherilied or something similar).

Like a lot of things it's a way of making the world seem more alive by giving characters more variety and making them seem more like actual people with varied lives and experiences and less like 1 dimensional NPCs who only exist to serve a function in your story.

IMO Guild Wars 2 is an example of a game which does it well. There's characters with prosthetic limbs or missing an eye where it's not really mentioned at all and others where the prosthetic and/or the event that lead to needing it are an important part of their backstory and inform how they act and feel about current situations, and some who get injured during the story itself. There's one character who can't speak and uses sign-language instead (translated by one of her companions for people who don't know sign language, like the player character), and at least a few who are hard of hearing or Deaf which makes conversations with them different to usual, but otherwise doesn't come up, it's just a bit of character development, like giving some of them families or hobbies they mention even if it's not directly relevant to what you're doing.

There's also a main character (Taimi) whose disability is a plot point in various ways. She has a degenerative condition which means she can't walk fast or very far and which will probably kill her eventually. That's used as justification for the player needing to do things for her, but more importantly her research into both prosthetics and other alternatives and new types of healing magic help drive the wider plot. Yes that game has healing magic too, but the lore isn't as simplistic and limiting as some people seem to think The Elder Scrolls is, so it's not as simple as "healing magic exists, end of discussion". Everything in the Guild Wars universe is magical, so knowing all about magic and all the ways to use it would be like someone knowing all of science in real life - it doesn't happen. New types of magic can be discovered or invented but they have their own limitations and drawbacks and may take more than one lifetime to perfect.

And yes it also opens up the option for players to have more cosmetics to customise their characters. As well as eye patches like we already have in ESO there's both mechanical 'pirate' style prosthetics like a wooden leg and hook hand, and magitech ones based on the game's lore.

I played Guild Wars 2. And what you are saying are actually story lines, not just placing some disabled NPCs here and there. I could absolutely get behind a questline helping someone at the mages guild who researches Dwemer-Style prosthetics for either themselves or an injured relative/friend, and of course others. That would be story, something to engage with. Just placing such characters here and there in game, does not make it any deeper in my opinion.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Cardhwion wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

Cardhwion wrote: »

Fantalior wrote: »

A long time ago, I started a discussion about why there are no children in TESO, and I understand the argument that it's a war-torn land, and the age restriction doesn't allow for them, even as unassailable characters like in Skyrim.

But one could at least introduce war-torn or disabled characters as NPCs, for example, a merchant missing an arm or leg. That would also fit well with the arrow-in-the-knee story you hear everywhere. Eye patches and nasty scars have been in the game since the beginning. I don't think a medieval fantasy world would benefit from a one-legged beggar on the side of the road who you can give gold to... If you're in a certain guild, he turns out to be a contact who distributes quests. And then rewards me with gold for completing quests.

What do you think?

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh. The no children policiy is logical, because you can kill innocents, and if players were able to slaughter children, the game would cause controversy or maybe even banned in some places. So that's a good point.

I honestly do not see what see what your suggestion would do to improve the game. To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere, where you have to help wounded veterans of your faction, or give you a one-handed companion who still fights. (Think of Walther in the Waltherilied or something similar).

Like a lot of things it's a way of making the world seem more alive by giving characters more variety and making them seem more like actual people with varied lives and experiences and less like 1 dimensional NPCs who only exist to serve a function in your story.

IMO Guild Wars 2 is an example of a game which does it well. There's characters with prosthetic limbs or missing an eye where it's not really mentioned at all and others where the prosthetic and/or the event that lead to needing it are an important part of their backstory and inform how they act and feel about current situations, and some who get injured during the story itself. There's one character who can't speak and uses sign-language instead (translated by one of her companions for people who don't know sign language, like the player character), and at least a few who are hard of hearing or Deaf which makes conversations with them different to usual, but otherwise doesn't come up, it's just a bit of character development, like giving some of them families or hobbies they mention even if it's not directly relevant to what you're doing.

There's also a main character (Taimi) whose disability is a plot point in various ways. She has a degenerative condition which means she can't walk fast or very far and which will probably kill her eventually. That's used as justification for the player needing to do things for her, but more importantly her research into both prosthetics and other alternatives and new types of healing magic help drive the wider plot. Yes that game has healing magic too, but the lore isn't as simplistic and limiting as some people seem to think The Elder Scrolls is, so it's not as simple as "healing magic exists, end of discussion". Everything in the Guild Wars universe is magical, so knowing all about magic and all the ways to use it would be like someone knowing all of science in real life - it doesn't happen. New types of magic can be discovered or invented but they have their own limitations and drawbacks and may take more than one lifetime to perfect.

And yes it also opens up the option for players to have more cosmetics to customise their characters. As well as eye patches like we already have in ESO there's both mechanical 'pirate' style prosthetics like a wooden leg and hook hand, and magitech ones based on the game's lore.

I played Guild Wars 2. And what you are saying are actually story lines, not just placing some disabled NPCs here and there. I could absolutely get behind a questline helping someone at the mages guild who researches Dwemer-Style prosthetics for either themselves or an injured relative/friend, and of course others. That would be story, something to engage with. Just placing such characters here and there in game, does not make it any deeper in my opinion.

Then why have any non quest related NPCs?

You don't engage with them, they are just there to make the story deeper and more 'realistic'.

This would be simply the same thing.

Just like inns have various NPCs just sitting around or bards singing, and you see people at the docks going about their daily lives. They are just there to make the story more immersive, and to some people, things like this would make the story more immersive to them, especially since ESO is supposed to be a time of war.

Elsonso

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Just like inns have various NPCs just sitting around or bards singing, and you see people at the docks going about their daily lives. They are just there to make the story more immersive, and to some people, things like this would make the story more immersive to them, especially since ESO is supposed to be a time of war.

These days, a lot of those NPCs that are going about their daily lives are there for the players to kill as part of the Justice System.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Elsonso wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Just like inns have various NPCs just sitting around or bards singing, and you see people at the docks going about their daily lives. They are just there to make the story more immersive, and to some people, things like this would make the story more immersive to them, especially since ESO is supposed to be a time of war.

These days, a lot of those NPCs that are going about their daily lives are there for the players to kill as part of the Justice System.

True, I forgot about that, but adding disabled characters should be a plus! more NPCs to kill!

(I just finished Dark brotherhood like two weeks ago? so I often still forget about it)

Syldras

I honestly don't get the opposition to adding such npcs (or changing the appearance of npcs that already have a limb missing storywise - there's a Bosmer in one of the earlier AD zones who has, according to dialogue, but it's just not visible on the character model). I can see people don't care much or don't think it's high priority, but why being against it? It's a game that takes place during a war after all - don't like it? Well, then it might not be the right story for you. And I've never seen these kind of complaints when it comes to other forms or media or art, like movies or books, either. And people do watch and read these things despite they might contain gruesome details.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Syldras wrote: »

don't like it? Well, then it might not be the right story for you.

The same could be said for adding it then right? Don't like the fact the game doesn't have it then it might not be the right game for you?

This type of argument is circular and doesn't really benefit the discussion.

Syldras

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

don't like it? Well, then it might not be the right story for you.

The same could be said for adding it then right? Don't like the fact the game doesn't have it then it might not be the right game for you?
This type of argument is circular and doesn't really benefit the discussion.

Did anyone here say the game was bad and they don't enjoy it because npcs don't have missing limbs (or have wooden or metal prostheses - apart from the CWC ones - instead)? Because all I see are suggestions that this might be something that ZOS could include at some time, as an extra, because it would fit the stories and world ESO takes place in.

I honestly don't understand why adding something that would absolutely fit a game's story and world would be so disturbing to some people? Playing a game with a big war being the center of its story (and add to that all the daedra problems, accidents that may happen in a rural society, etc, that might also end with a missing limb) but being so opposed to seeing someone with a peg leg honestly sounds strange to me. If I go watch a movie about a war, I expect to see people fighting. If I read a story about pirates, I expect description of the life aboard a ship in the book. Nothing more, nothing less.

Soarora

Syldras wrote: »

I honestly don't get the opposition to adding such npcs (or changing the appearance of npcs that already have a limb missing storywise - there's a Bosmer in one of the earlier AD zones who has, according to dialogue, but it's just not visible on the character model). I can see people don't care much or don't think it's high priority, but why being against it? It's a game that takes place during a war after all - don't like it? Well, then it might not be the right story for you. And I've never seen these kind of complaints when it comes to other forms or media or art, like movies or books, either. And people do watch and read these things despite they might contain gruesome details.

Plus, surely it's not too hard to make a shoe that's a wooden leg or cut off part of the model and have them sitting down.

WuffyCerulei

Sarannah wrote: »

Would not want to see this in-game, I play ESO to escape the real world issues.

A bit ignorant there. Disabled people would probably like some GOOD representation in games too, considering they also play games like ESO to escape the real world that rarely changes to even slightly give an iota of accommodations for them. It's not just able-bodied people who play games.

Soarora

WuffyCerulei wrote: »

Sarannah wrote: »

Would not want to see this in-game, I play ESO to escape the real world issues.

A bit ignorant there. Disabled people would probably like some GOOD representation in games too, considering they also play games like ESO to escape the real world that rarely changes to even slightly give an iota of accommodations for them. It's not just able-bodied people who play games.

Not to mention that ESO honestly is not the best place to apply "escaping real world issues" to. That's like saying you play call of duty or battlefield to escape real world issues. Yes, many people use ESO for escapism I know, but the elder scrolls universe is also riddled with racism and slavery. It's currently at war with many people dying. It's also got plenty of lgbtq+ folks, although in most circumstances they seem to be met with no issue so the "real world issues" argument there probably only applies if you don't like lgbtq+ people. The game has religions and gods (by extension also believers) that don't like each other. None of that should be removed from the game because they're "real world issues", so adding new things within the same realm also aren't doing anything newly negative to anyone.

Danikat

Cardhwion wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

Cardhwion wrote: »

Fantalior wrote: »

A long time ago, I started a discussion about why there are no children in TESO, and I understand the argument that it's a war-torn land, and the age restriction doesn't allow for them, even as unassailable characters like in Skyrim.

But one could at least introduce war-torn or disabled characters as NPCs, for example, a merchant missing an arm or leg. That would also fit well with the arrow-in-the-knee story you hear everywhere. Eye patches and nasty scars have been in the game since the beginning. I don't think a medieval fantasy world would benefit from a one-legged beggar on the side of the road who you can give gold to... If you're in a certain guild, he turns out to be a contact who distributes quests. And then rewards me with gold for completing quests.

What do you think?

I don't see any benefit game-wise from it. None at all, tbh. The no children policiy is logical, because you can kill innocents, and if players were able to slaughter children, the game would cause controversy or maybe even banned in some places. So that's a good point.

I honestly do not see what see what your suggestion would do to improve the game. To me it would feel rather odd, and a bit like "look we showing disabled people" without any real benefit to the game. If they wanted to something like that they might do by not putting it all over the place, but maybe give you a quest chain somewhere, where you have to help wounded veterans of your faction, or give you a one-handed companion who still fights. (Think of Walther in the Waltherilied or something similar).

Like a lot of things it's a way of making the world seem more alive by giving characters more variety and making them seem more like actual people with varied lives and experiences and less like 1 dimensional NPCs who only exist to serve a function in your story.

IMO Guild Wars 2 is an example of a game which does it well. There's characters with prosthetic limbs or missing an eye where it's not really mentioned at all and others where the prosthetic and/or the event that lead to needing it are an important part of their backstory and inform how they act and feel about current situations, and some who get injured during the story itself. There's one character who can't speak and uses sign-language instead (translated by one of her companions for people who don't know sign language, like the player character), and at least a few who are hard of hearing or Deaf which makes conversations with them different to usual, but otherwise doesn't come up, it's just a bit of character development, like giving some of them families or hobbies they mention even if it's not directly relevant to what you're doing.

There's also a main character (Taimi) whose disability is a plot point in various ways. She has a degenerative condition which means she can't walk fast or very far and which will probably kill her eventually. That's used as justification for the player needing to do things for her, but more importantly her research into both prosthetics and other alternatives and new types of healing magic help drive the wider plot. Yes that game has healing magic too, but the lore isn't as simplistic and limiting as some people seem to think The Elder Scrolls is, so it's not as simple as "healing magic exists, end of discussion". Everything in the Guild Wars universe is magical, so knowing all about magic and all the ways to use it would be like someone knowing all of science in real life - it doesn't happen. New types of magic can be discovered or invented but they have their own limitations and drawbacks and may take more than one lifetime to perfect.

And yes it also opens up the option for players to have more cosmetics to customise their characters. As well as eye patches like we already have in ESO there's both mechanical 'pirate' style prosthetics like a wooden leg and hook hand, and magitech ones based on the game's lore.

I played Guild Wars 2. And what you are saying are actually story lines, not just placing some disabled NPCs here and there. I could absolutely get behind a questline helping someone at the mages guild who researches Dwemer-Style prosthetics for either themselves or an injured relative/friend, and of course others. That would be story, something to engage with. Just placing such characters here and there in game, does not make it any deeper in my opinion.

That's because you asked what it would add to the game beyond just be making some random NPCs disabled, so I chose examples to answer that question. There's no reason ESO couldn't do the same, especially since as several people have mentioned there's already quests where we're told a character is missing a body part, there just isn't a model to show it.

But also one of the examples I had in mind is Yao who is a main story character, and also disabled (they have a prosthetic arm) but the two things are largely unrelated. As far as I remember their arm is only briefly mentioned, as part of discussing the uses of dragon jade magic, and we're never told the full story behind it.

wolfie1.0.

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

Syldras

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

So murdering women, including possibly pregnant women, homeless people, war refugees, blind people, feeble old people, LGBT people, healers, slaves and beggars is okay, but if the character has a wooden leg (for example because it's a pirate - I know that's trope-y, but not impossible) then it's suddenly too evil?

If morals are important, I'd suggest not murdering anyone (or not joining a murder cult of all things). To differ between "innocent people who can be murdered" and "innocent people who can't be murdered" seems to be a rather strange idea to me...?

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

So murdering women, including possibly pregnant women, homeless people, war refugees, blind people, LGBT people, healers, slaves and beggars is okay, but if the character has a wooden leg (for example because it's a pirate - I know that's trope-y, but not impossible) then it's suddenly too evil?

If morals are important, I'd suggest not murdering anyone (or not joining a murder cult of all things). To differ between "innocent people who can be murdered" and "innocent people who can't be murdered" seems to be a rather strange idea to me...?

I was thinking this. I also was expecting someone to bring up the whole 'people shouldn't be able to kill disabled NPCs'.

The thieves guild and assassins guild, in any game, are typically meant to allow people to act out actions they wouldn't in real life. If you have an objection to killing someone, then don't do it. That is why I only just now, as in a week or two ago, completed the dark brotherhood, because I am not really the assassin type (I would also personally love a more vigilante type assassins guild rather than just a 'someone hired us, we don't care why, the person must die' guild).

At the end of the day, these are pixels. They literally don't care if you murder them. I have seen NPCs standing on the corpses of two or three of their own clones.

If you make it your own personal choice to decide 'okay, I am not going to murder this particular type of person', then go for it! It is all up to you who you kill, outside the quests associated with the dark brotherhood. But, other people might have different choices. Maybe they don't want to murder someone who might have children at home depending on them. Maybe they don't want to murder hard working dock workers. Maybe they just don't care, they just want the rewards.

All are valid playstyles. If disabled NPCs are added, then that is just another aspect of play.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I was thinking this. I also was expecting someone to bring up the whole 'people shouldn't be able to kill disabled NPCs'.
The thieves guild and assassins guild, in any game, are typically meant to allow people to act out actions they wouldn't in real life. If you have an objection to killing someone, then don't do it. That is why I only just now, as in a week or two ago, completed the dark brotherhood, because I am not really the assassin type (I would also personally love a more vigilante type assassins guild rather than just a 'someone hired us, we don't care why, the person must die' guild).
At the end of the day, these are pixels. They literally don't care if you murder them. I have seen NPCs standing on the corpses of two or three of their own clones.
If you make it your own personal choice to decide 'okay, I am not going to murder this particular type of person', then go for it! It is all up to you who you kill, outside the quests associated with the dark brotherhood. But, other people might have different choices. Maybe they don't want to murder someone who might have children at home depending on them. Maybe they don't want to murder hard working dock workers. Maybe they just don't care, they just want the rewards.
All are valid playstyles. If disabled NPCs are added, then that is just another aspect of play.

It's honestly strange to me how being a member of a sinister murder cult is a cool thing for many people (you see people celebrating the Dark Brotherhood all the time), and randomly murdering whole towns in ESO is absolutely fine (some people brag about how they run around with thousands of bounty for doing that), but when it comes to some identity category (and which one, varies individually), then it's suddenly not okay. As if the murder of innocent people would be morally fine in any other case.

But actually, it doesn't matter: If I play, I roleplay; and because of that I wonder whether my character would murder anyone at all, and if so, how he would decide in that individual case. It's not reality (luckily!). Of course we can debate now whether it's generally a good concept to give players the ability to ritual-murder random innocent people in a game or not - but I don't want to debate that right now, as it's not the topic of the thread.

By the way, if the Black Sacrament is performed correctly and the Dark Brotherhood gets a new target to murder - would they refuse if it was a one-legged old man? Or a veteran with only one hand? I doubt it.

Soarora

Syldras wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

So murdering women, including possibly pregnant women, homeless people, war refugees, blind people, feeble old people, LGBT people, healers, slaves and beggars is okay, but if the character has a wooden leg (for example because it's a pirate - I know that's trope-y, but not impossible) then it's suddenly too evil?

If morals are important, I'd suggest not murdering anyone (or not joining a murder cult of all things). To differ between "innocent people who can be murdered" and "innocent people who can't be murdered" seems to be a rather strange idea to me...?

You can even murder people IN FRONT OF THEIR PETS! But if it really mattered that much to have disabled people not be killable (which in itself is not treating them like everyone else, which could be considered offensive), there are nonkillable npcs like bards and merchants.

Vaqual

I am always for anything that adds immersion, realism and a bit of grit. The magic only stands out when it gets contrasted a bit by mundanity.

Maybe people miss limbs because no one that is powerful enough has bothered to help them, because it simply can't be done, they mistrust magic or because they choose to wear their scars with pride.

Anything that raises the stakes helps to make quests feel impactful, and if as a consequence of a bad choice an NPC gets mangled, that can be a good plot device. It is good to have variety.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Vaqual wrote: »

I am always for anything that adds immersion, realism and a bit of grit. The magic only stands out when it gets contrasted a bit by mundanity.

Maybe people miss limbs because no one that is powerful enough has bothered to help them, because it simply can't be done, they mistrust magic or because they choose to wear their scars with pride.

Anything that raises the stakes helps to make quests feel impactful, and if as a consequence of a bad choice an NPC gets mangled, that can be a good plot device. It is good to have variety.

*Points to Nords* Nords are right there.

But yeah, one of the things that is often missed when discussing magic in a fantasy world, is that often magic is meant to be relatively rare. IE, not every second person you meet is going to be a mage. There are definitely exceptions to that rule, but even with those, there are often differences between someone who can use healing magic and someone who can use destructive magic, and others who are more creation oriented and so on.

So, even with magic being a thing, I can't imagine that poor quarry workers are going to have access to the magic necessary to regrow an entire limb. Someone in the middle of the ocean, on a ship, isn't going to be able to just teleport to a port that has a magic user that can heal them after a fight with pirates.

I would imagine that it would be a lot like most societies, in that only people who live in the middle of big urban areas, or who are rich are going to have immediate access to the kind of care needed to prevent the permanent loss of limbs/permanent injury.

So, yeah, I don't see why the idea that a world that is pretty constantly at war is going to have people that have lost limbs and/or have other permanent injuries is so ridiculous. It could come down to something as simple as the only mage who could use healing magic was killed in a battle, and so the person couldn't reach another mage in time to be able to 'fix' the injury without significant cost involved (either money, time, effort, or whatever)

Add to the fact that canonically, we already KNOW that permanent injuries exist (the infamous 'I used to be an adventurer until I took an arrow to the knee' line. If magic healed everything, then the arrow to the knee wouldn't have been a permanent injury. I also think that there have been a few NPCs who mention disablities but they aren't shown), it makes even less sense to try to use the 'but magic' line as a reason why people wouldn't have permanent injuries.

Monte_Cristo

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I am always for anything that adds immersion, realism and a bit of grit. The magic only stands out when it gets contrasted a bit by mundanity.

Maybe people miss limbs because no one that is powerful enough has bothered to help them, because it simply can't be done, they mistrust magic or because they choose to wear their scars with pride.

Anything that raises the stakes helps to make quests feel impactful, and if as a consequence of a bad choice an NPC gets mangled, that can be a good plot device. It is good to have variety.

*Points to Nords* Nords are right there.

But yeah, one of the things that is often missed when discussing magic in a fantasy world, is that often magic is meant to be relatively rare. IE, not every second person you meet is going to be a mage. There are definitely exceptions to that rule, but even with those, there are often differences between someone who can use healing magic and someone who can use destructive magic, and others who are more creation oriented and so on.

So, even with magic being a thing, I can't imagine that poor quarry workers are going to have access to the magic necessary to regrow an entire limb. Someone in the middle of the ocean, on a ship, isn't going to be able to just teleport to a port that has a magic user that can heal them after a fight with pirates.

I would imagine that it would be a lot like most societies, in that only people who live in the middle of big urban areas, or who are rich are going to have immediate access to the kind of care needed to prevent the permanent loss of limbs/permanent injury.

So, yeah, I don't see why the idea that a world that is pretty constantly at war is going to have people that have lost limbs and/or have other permanent injuries is so ridiculous. It could come down to something as simple as the only mage who could use healing magic was killed in a battle, and so the person couldn't reach another mage in time to be able to 'fix' the injury without significant cost involved (either money, time, effort, or whatever)

Add to the fact that canonically, we already KNOW that permanent injuries exist (the infamous 'I used to be an adventurer until I took an arrow to the knee' line. If magic healed everything, then the arrow to the knee wouldn't have been a permanent injury. I also think that there have been a few NPCs who mention disablities but they aren't shown), it makes even less sense to try to use the 'but magic' line as a reason why people wouldn't have permanent injuries.

There is a theory that 'arrow to the knee' was a euphemism for marriage, meaning that the guard stopped adventuring when they had a family to support, so they needed a stable job in town, instead of wandering the wilderness for weeks at a time.

And to reiterate my earlier point. The hunter you meet on Bleakrock is supposed to have had his foot bitten off just before you met him, yet he somehow still has both feet. Did he jam a spare boot over the bloody stump?

JemadarofCaerSalis

Monte_Cristo wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Vaqual wrote: »

I am always for anything that adds immersion, realism and a bit of grit. The magic only stands out when it gets contrasted a bit by mundanity.

Maybe people miss limbs because no one that is powerful enough has bothered to help them, because it simply can't be done, they mistrust magic or because they choose to wear their scars with pride.

Anything that raises the stakes helps to make quests feel impactful, and if as a consequence of a bad choice an NPC gets mangled, that can be a good plot device. It is good to have variety.

*Points to Nords* Nords are right there.

But yeah, one of the things that is often missed when discussing magic in a fantasy world, is that often magic is meant to be relatively rare. IE, not every second person you meet is going to be a mage. There are definitely exceptions to that rule, but even with those, there are often differences between someone who can use healing magic and someone who can use destructive magic, and others who are more creation oriented and so on.

So, even with magic being a thing, I can't imagine that poor quarry workers are going to have access to the magic necessary to regrow an entire limb. Someone in the middle of the ocean, on a ship, isn't going to be able to just teleport to a port that has a magic user that can heal them after a fight with pirates.

I would imagine that it would be a lot like most societies, in that only people who live in the middle of big urban areas, or who are rich are going to have immediate access to the kind of care needed to prevent the permanent loss of limbs/permanent injury.

So, yeah, I don't see why the idea that a world that is pretty constantly at war is going to have people that have lost limbs and/or have other permanent injuries is so ridiculous. It could come down to something as simple as the only mage who could use healing magic was killed in a battle, and so the person couldn't reach another mage in time to be able to 'fix' the injury without significant cost involved (either money, time, effort, or whatever)

Add to the fact that canonically, we already KNOW that permanent injuries exist (the infamous 'I used to be an adventurer until I took an arrow to the knee' line. If magic healed everything, then the arrow to the knee wouldn't have been a permanent injury. I also think that there have been a few NPCs who mention disablities but they aren't shown), it makes even less sense to try to use the 'but magic' line as a reason why people wouldn't have permanent injuries.

There is a theory that 'arrow to the knee' was a euphemism for marriage, meaning that the guard stopped adventuring when they had a family to support, so they needed a stable job in town, instead of wandering the wilderness for weeks at a time.

And to reiterate my earlier point. The hunter you meet on Bleakrock is supposed to have had his foot bitten off just before you met him, yet he somehow still has both feet. Did he jam a spare boot over the bloody stump?

I personally just take it literally. Because I can see it happening. It doesn't have to be a euphemism for anything. According to Wiki, it was misattributed to being old nordic slang for marriage, and apparently (Again according to the wikipedia page) the person who thought it up just wanted it to be something to give guards 'flavor and personality'.

Since I am not the person who actually thought it up, I honestly don't know what they were thinking when they created it. Maybe it was meant to mean that the guard settled down and got married, but until it is confirmed I will just take the phrase literally.

As for the Bleakrock hunter, yeah, that is one of the NPCs I was talking about, and I already mentioned in one of my earlier posts that it would likely not be cost effective to create new models (and in some cases new skeletons for movement) for all the various injuries a person could get that would result in permanent injury.

I still think that they could do something with armor and/or maybe skins, where they can hint at prosthetics (which, in the case of a foot missing, who knows, he might have a prosthetic foot that he puts a boot over. Which would be something we wouldn't see, and thus wouldn't need a model/texture change), and it a lot more effort than retexturing various armor pieces.