AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Well I might have been wrong about the whole vampire hunter guy, it's been a while since I've done the quest, but as for the rest, my point of view is perfectly valid and true, and back by Empirical evidence acquired while playing the game; your argument is things aren't the way the game is, things are different and for whatever reason the game isn't doing what it should by taking into account some factors that you imagine to be true.

It is neither valid nor true because you are using an unrelated factor to try to disprove what is actually true. Things are different because all the games in the franchise say and show it is different. The way the player character is treated does not reflect how the non-playable characters are treated, because the way the player is treated needs to be more or less equal to the next player as to not lock people out of content. If the NPCs treated your vampire character the way they are supposed to, the way they would treat any other vampire in the lore, you wouldn't be able to do almost any quests in the game. This is why your "point of view" is leading you to make the mistake that the people of Tamriel are very tolerant, which is simply false.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Skyrim isn't this game, you can try to conflate the experience but it's not a valid comparison. While Skyrim had similar issues with what you'd expect as a response for your characters race or nature, it's not the same period, story or even game-play experience, being a single player game.

It is a perfectly valid comparison, because the issue is actually worse in a multiplayer game. In a single player game like Skyrim, they could have perfectly locked you out of doing the Stormcloaks quest line if you are playing as an Elf, because you can just make another save and get to the same point (faction choice) in a few minutes. They can lock you out from entire questlines based on your choices (for example, Dark Brotherhood) because you can just reload an early save and play it, you do not get forever locked from it. In a MMO, you would have to make a different character if they were to lock you out of content based on your choices or your race, which is why the decisions are not as impactful as in previous TES games. This argument actually works against what you were originally claiming, because it shows exactly why the player character is treated well regardless of race, alliance or if they are a vampire or not in ESO: For gameplay reasons, NOT lore reasons.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

I've never experienced any of the bigotry you're mentioning, and nobody is ever insensitive enough to talk about my complexion, odor, or choice to be a vegan vampire, which I share with a number of other stage 4 vampires that have just given up pointless consumerism. I think people in Tamriel are more afraid of pick pockets, and blade of woeers, as they should be. I don't need to separate game-play from lore, because they are the same thing. For a simple example, you live life, you watch news, watching news is like reading lore, it may or may not be true, but it is part of the whole experience of life. Lore is to game-play what news is to life, it's a subset. If you want to make valid conclusions you need to make valid observations.

You never experienced it because you can't experience it in a MMO without being locked out of content with that character, which is something that companies tend to avoid. This is the sole reason why you, the player character, never experienced it. I suggest paying more attention to the quests involving vampires and to read on the major conflicts of Tamriel, because you are missing on a lot of lore by ignoring it since it doesn't affect the player character. And this is why you are making claims that are not true in this thread, like saying people of Tamriel are super tolerant when they absolutely are not.

Abeille wrote: »

And this is why you are making claims that are not true in this thread, like saying people of Tamriel are super tolerant when they absolutely are not.

^^ This. Most of the people in Tamriel do not openly tolerate vampires. They don't like werewolves either, but lycanthropy is easier to hide than vampirism. I rarely transform in towns; if I did, I would fully expect the guards to come after me (if ESO was set up that way, but it isn't). One of the benefits to lycanthropy is that, when I'm not in werewolf form, nobody knows that I'm a werewolf. Unless they personally witness my character actively transforming, they will never know. Vampires don't currently have that luxury (though as I said, a little bit of makeup could probably hide vampirism as well).

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

DocFrost72 wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

I don't see looking like a vampire as a problem. Some people make it sound like vampires are discriminated against in
Tamriel, but that's not the case at all. Tamriel is a far more pluralistic society than anything we have on earth, there is no gender or sexual discrimination, gay marriage has been a thing longer here than in the United Kingdom, and we don't even have gun powder yet, let alone Trident Subs! There is total freedom of belief, no racism except for a few odd bigots here and there usually confined to quests where you get a chance to kill them for their ugly thoughts. Nobody hates anyone for their appearance, race, sexual preferences, alliance choices, or religion, except for a small minority of people with ugly hearts.

Nobody hates vampires, nobody even cares that you are one, rejoice! Yes it's obvious you are one but so is 2/3's of the society! Stop feeling alienated, we are the majority, and people have to accept us the way we are. Don't be ashamed of your awesome skin, just demand that you get your tats back! You don't have to be afraid, you can be proud! Tamriel is vampires! Tamriel is werewolves! Show your skin! Show your love for your comrades!

Er...so I can be killed the second I admit it? No thanks. Play the fighter's guild storyline for five minutes, they (and a vast majority of Tamriel) would kill supers on sight.

Which is why vampires feed to stay undetected, and why we want to look normal. Roleplay, and all that

@Everyone who thinks it is lore breaking, Google immortal blood. Great read and I won't spoil it, but vampires certainly can fool everyone if well fed.

@PvPers: stage one vamps still take extra damage to your fighter's guild abilities in stage one, which imho is the only one that should look normal, and get no passives. None. Zero. Zilch.

@it's achoice peeps: it is, and if I go into Cyrodiil on a vamp I pay heavily. If I want any passives, I pay in extra fire damage (name a single dungeon that has no fire damage. I'll wait).

Honestly I don't buy that book. I read it, but I think it's just propaganda, a ghost story to make kids scared. Like Mark Twain Kinda' said: "Don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed, read them you are misinformed."

People write things all the time, and that doesn't make it fact, one has to be more critical than to just say because it is lore it is fact, it might as well be lore-fiction.

Well, there are vamp characters we meet in game.
Count Verandis is one example, and then we have a vamp who is a court mage of Solitude. Sure, there are rumors about her, but npcs arent 100% sure shes a vampire (otherwise she wouldve been killed, as shown in many quests featuring them). Which kinda implies that she can hide her identity.

TheMaster wrote: »

I know some people just want the vampires to look less hideous, but this isn't about that. This is for people that want to look completely normal as vampires and the people that are against it.

A "mortal mask" feature is implemented as another Vampire skilline passive that's unlocked at rank 10 for a skill point. With this optional passive, your character will look normal, but only outside of combat. Any time your character takes damage in direct combat, they're exposed as a vampire. It would be like the disguise system, but the passive reactivates after you leave combat.

This is brilliant. I would LOVE it!

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

I honestly can't accept your argument, you are essentially saying that the game allows you to make choices that would break the reality of the way other characters would react to you. That can't make sense, otherwise how could you tell a story effectively if character relations to each other are so fundamentally wrong, and inaccurate?

The alternative is worse from a story-telling point of view. The alternative is nobody talks to you, all guards kill you in sight, citizens flee as you approach, it would be impossible to tell almost any story in the game because you wouldn't be able to do almost any quests. Therefore, making npcs ignore your vampirism is in fact the most effective way to tell the story, as long as the player care to pay attention to the lore and understand why it was done this way.

You don't have to accept my argument, you just have to pay attention to the quests involving vampires and to read on the major conflicts in the franchise. I'm not asking you to believe me, things are how they are.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Game-play and lore are not separated, what the problem is here, is that you are allowed to make a choice that breaks the narrative and they don't have a creative way to modify the narrative to accommodate the option they allowed. Your argument demands that you pull an Anna Karenina separating your type of person from other types of persons and expect that the world treats you differently than other identical people. The real problem is the game design that sacrifices the narrative. But that choice has been made, so now we are left to draw our own valid conclusions from experience, not imagination.

You see, you are drawing your conclusion from what you experienced without taking into consideration any other factor: The lore, the other NPCs in the same situation as you, the gameplay decisions. There is a line between lore and gameplay, otherwise a game like this wouldn't exist.

So, all in all, you are experiencing confirmation bias, since you are ignoring pretty much everything else that points towards your experience not being the actual rule.

And even if the lore didn't explicitly contradicted your experience, which it does, but let's say that it doesn't (again, it does): I live in one of the most violent cities in the world, Rio de Janeiro, but I was never mugged. Would it then be accurate to say that the city is completely safe, since I never experienced the violence? Even though other people around me experienced the violence? Even though there are several reports of the violence happening?

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

I've payed pretty close attention to the story, and even in the one we're talking about; the Rivenspire one, you meat, oops, meet, a few bigots like the duchess who hates blood-fiends and considers them to be a subset of vampires, and some of the guards that have suffered losses to blood-fiends, again conflating them with vampires and due to their trauma react accordingly to blood-fiends. And then you have the more pragmatic and just (baron?) who doesn't care about vampires much at all, knows Verandis is one, and while he dosn't like Verandis he doesn't hold his condition against him. While he's brisk and gruff, he's happy to hold his own son to justice for his treachery, essentially a guy you can trust to make sound decisions. And then there is Emeric who also knows, and tells you he knows that Verandis is a vamp, and he is fine with it. Lots of vampires lead ordinary lives and don't even bother with human blood. There are quite a few quests in this game with exposition that shows vampires are pretty much ordinary people like you and me who just want to be accepted for who they are and don't mean any harm at all.

I suggest you to play the questline of Rivenspire (and every other questline involving vampires in the game) again, because what you are experience is again confirmation bias. You are disregarding the fact that thosands of people kill vampires in sight and that the existing vampires have to hide to survive, and fixating on a couple of people that are okay with them existing as if they were the norm, when these couple of people are the minority even in the quest you are trying to use to justify your argument.

There are not any quests in the game that show vampires as "any ordinary people". Their vampirism is always, without fail, the point of conflict in the narrative, either because you need to kill them or because you need to help them against other vampires (or to help them cure themselves, like that one quest in Greenshade). All of the quests involving vampirism remind you every five minutes of how vampires need to live in the shadows because the general populace does not accept their existence.

Abeille wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

I honestly can't accept your argument, you are essentially saying that the game allows you to make choices that would break the reality of the way other characters would react to you. That can't make sense, otherwise how could you tell a story effectively if character relations to each other are so fundamentally wrong, and inaccurate?

The alternative is worse from a story-telling point of view. The alternative is nobody talks to you, all guards kill you in sight, citizens flee as you approach, it would be impossible to tell almost any story in the game because you wouldn't be able to do almost any quests. Therefore, making npcs ignore your vampirism is in fact the most effective way to tell the story, as long as the player care to pay attention to the lore and understand why it was done this way.

You don't have to accept my argument, you just have to pay attention to the quests involving vampires and to read on the major conflicts in the franchise. I'm not asking you to believe me, things are how they are.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Game-play and lore are not separated, what the problem is here, is that you are allowed to make a choice that breaks the narrative and they don't have a creative way to modify the narrative to accommodate the option they allowed. Your argument demands that you pull an Anna Karenina separating your type of person from other types of persons and expect that the world treats you differently than other identical people. The real problem is the game design that sacrifices the narrative. But that choice has been made, so now we are left to draw our own valid conclusions from experience, not imagination.

You see, you are drawing your conclusion from what you experienced without taking into consideration any other factor: The lore, the other NPCs in the same situation as you, the gameplay decisions. There is a line between lore and gameplay, otherwise a game like this wouldn't exist.

So, all in all, you are experiencing confirmation bias, since you are ignoring pretty much everything else that points towards your experience not being the actual rule.

And even if the lore didn't explicitly contradicted your experience, which it does, but let's say that it doesn't (again, it does): I live in one of the most violent cities in the world, Rio de Janeiro, but I was never mugged. Would it then be accurate to say that the city is completely safe, since I never experienced the violence? Even though other people around me experienced the violence? Even though there are several reports of the violence happening?

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

I've payed pretty close attention to the story, and even in the one we're talking about; the Rivenspire one, you meat, oops, meet, a few bigots like the duchess who hates blood-fiends and considers them to be a subset of vampires, and some of the guards that have suffered losses to blood-fiends, again conflating them with vampires and due to their trauma react accordingly to blood-fiends. And then you have the more pragmatic and just (baron?) who doesn't care about vampires much at all, knows Verandis is one, and while he dosn't like Verandis he doesn't hold his condition against him. While he's brisk and gruff, he's happy to hold his own son to justice for his treachery, essentially a guy you can trust to make sound decisions. And then there is Emeric who also knows, and tells you he knows that Verandis is a vamp, and he is fine with it. Lots of vampires lead ordinary lives and don't even bother with human blood. There are quite a few quests in this game with exposition that shows vampires are pretty much ordinary people like you and me who just want to be accepted for who they are and don't mean any harm at all.

I suggest you to play the questline of Rivenspire (and every other questline involving vampires in the game) again, because what you are experience is again confirmation bias. You are disregarding the fact that thosands of people kill vampires in sight and that the existing vampires have to hide to survive, and fixating on a couple of people that are okay with them existing as if they were the norm, when these couple of people are the minority even in the quest you are trying to use to justify your argument.

There are not any quests in the game that show vampires as "any ordinary people". Their vampirism is always, without fail, the point of conflict in the narrative, either because you need to kill them or because you need to help them against other vampires (or to help them cure themselves, like that one quest in Greenshade). All of the quests involving vampirism remind you every five minutes of how vampires need to live in the shadows because the general populace does not accept their existence.

So in the end are you saying you wished the game was like the lore, or the lore like the game? Or you think the two are best left separate and un-reconciled because it's better nothing makes sense? Witch flavor of nonsense do you prefer?

As to the Rivenspire stuff, my observations are correct, there aren't 2000 or more npcs in all the game programmed to be in fighting loops killing vampires. Vampires don't have to hide to survive, nor can people be killed in this game for more than a few moments. The people I am "fixating" on are all the core characters other than the vampires in the Rivenspire story. The only one that has any strong bigoted opinion is the duchess. I have to run out to some appointments, but I will look around on the DBs for some of the quests I remember where vampires just want to have some help to be treated like societal equals. Also, I don't remember any of Verandis' clan hiding in shadows, they seemed to be ok standing around doing whatever they felt like in any size crowd of people.

Anyway I don't see a bias; and the vampires I see with red eyes or white fur that are NPCs don't seem to attract any unwanted attention from other npcs just like we as players don't either, the point of all that stuff is a player telegraph, like blocking or using abilities that lets you know what hand other players are playing with. It's quite safe to assume people in Tamriel don't notice or don't care about those aspects of player and npc appearance. Maybe we should share their indifference to these petty physical differences.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

GreyWolf_79 wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

I don't see looking like a vampire as a problem. Some people make it sound like vampires are discriminated against in
Tamriel, but that's not the case at all. Tamriel is a far more pluralistic society than anything we have on earth, there is no gender or sexual discrimination, gay marriage has been a thing longer here than in the United Kingdom, and we don't even have gun powder yet, let alone Trident Subs! There is total freedom of belief, no racism except for a few odd bigots here and there usually confined to quests where you get a chance to kill them for their ugly thoughts. Nobody hates anyone for their appearance, race, sexual preferences, alliance choices, or religion, except for a small minority of people with ugly hearts.

Nobody hates vampires, nobody even cares that you are one, rejoice! Yes it's obvious you are one but so is 2/3's of the society! Stop feeling alienated, we are the majority, and people have to accept us the way we are. Don't be ashamed of your awesome skin, just demand that you get your tats back! You don't have to be afraid, you can be proud! Tamriel is vampires! Tamriel is werewolves! Show your skin! Show your love for your comrades!

I'm not sure if we are playing the same franchise. There certainly is fear and hate of vampires (even quests based on it) and religious and racial discrimination are what moves pretty much every conflict in the franchise (I can't think of a single important Tamrielic conflict that had nothing to do with race and/or religion). Perhaps it is sarcasm and I didn't notice. If that's the case, sorry, my bad.

Even if what you are saying was true, people might still want their character not to look like vampires just because of aesthetics. Maybe they want their make up and body marks to show instead of being extremely faded.

Look there is fear and hate everywhere, but it doesn't represent the majority's point of view nor the opinions of the powerful. There are a few weridos out there that hate vampires, like that guy in the swamp in greenshade i think who wants you to kill some vampires with him and says he is a vampire hunter, but you can just kill him at the end of that quest and there is one less bigot in the world. Think of it like the South in the US, sure there are a few bigots here and there, but most people don't think that way and you can't live in fear because of a few odd-balls.

When you are standing around Mournhold, or Stormhaven or Elden Root, how many stage 4 vampires do you see around you? Hundreds! Do you ever see the guards go after them or call them raciest vampy things like "chalk face" or make smug jokes like "How's that pernicious anemia, today gentle lady?". No you don't because they have sensitivity training and know better. They are professionals. They know vampires and humans get along just fine, my vampire has been stage 4 for nearly 3 years, and never ate a person. And the weird vampires that actually freak out and think they need to feed can make relatonships with people who like being fed on, like with Verrandis' little sect of vampires which are NOT related to Lamae, since he was turned by the Baller himself! Vampires are just like normal people, we can be vegans if we want, we are just misunderstood by bigots.

Still don't believe me even though I am sure you've never been attacked by anyone in a city or anywhere for that matter for being a vampire? Do you think Almalexia or Vivic didn't know you were a vampire? Didn't they show tact and respect by not making a point of it? I hung out with See-all-colors for a long time as a stage 4 vampire, she never said anything about the smell, the worms or the occasional bat swarm. She was cool with it. All of my buddies in the 5 companions knew the score, no bias! Is queen Ayrenn after her years of adventuring so dense she can't tell a stage 4 vamp standing next to her? Yet she chooses to trust her life in your hands, filled with black blood congealing at your fingertips because she isn't racist. She can look past that. Tell me any of this isn't true.

With all due respect, you think it's strange for people to be biased against vampires? Vampires feed on people. Disliking vampires is not racism, it's self preservation.

I play as a werewolf. I completely understand why some people might not be comfortable with WWs. We shapeshift into savage beasts and occasionally eat people.

We are the weirdos, the people who don't like our supernatural kinds are actually the "normal" ones.

EDIT: and yes there are exceptions, vampires and werewolves who get along with normal mortal humans just fine. But in general, vamps and WWs are predators.

I've never experienced any bigotry as a stage 4 vampire. I have never eaten a person as a stage 4 vampire and my character is full vegan. I like werewolves too! I don't think you are strange or a weirdo. You only eat dead people so it's not really a problem, any more than someone would blame a dog or a pig for eating an unattended human corpse.

I don't know if you are reading my point but people don't seem to dislike vampires, nor to vampires make them fear for their survival. As I have said, as a long time stage 4 vampire I have never had cause to feel discriminated against. I think it's racist to look at vamps, ww's and humans differently, we're all sensitive, loving beings, and we can all use a hug! And what is normal anyway? I want you to define that term for me please!

this is such a weird argument. you are a player. npc's do not respond to players in the same way as they do to other NPC's. for example - when I pick flowers and cut down wood around bosmer - no one says nothing. and yet... they are still very much into green pact, to the point of acosting and arresting a poor khajiit by Elden root becasue they suspect he plucked a flower (not to mention multiple storylines to that effect)

why?

gameplay/story segregation. it is a thing, and yes it can be jarring, but you cannot POSSIBLY decide that lore is determined by what happens to you as a player vs npc's that are programmed to be part of the story/environment.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

So in the end are you saying you wished the game was like the lore, or the lore like the game? Or you think the two are best left separate and un-reconciled because it's better nothing makes sense? Witch flavor of nonsense do you prefer?

Neither. I'm saying that your vision of how people are treated in Tamriel conflicts with the lore of the game because you are ignoring key factors of the narrative. I think that, from a narrative perspective, ZOS (and Bethesda in previous TES game) did exactly what they had to do: They put the gameplay before the lore when it comes to how the player is treated so that they could tell the story and didn't lock people out of content.

That doesn't mean that suddenly the lore doesn't exist, just because some concession had to be made for gameplay reasons.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

As to the Rivenspire stuff, my observations are correct, there aren't 2000 or more npcs in all the game programmed to be in fighting loops killing vampires.

Nope, but there are dozens of NPCs programmed to tell you vampires are monsters. The only reason they do not attack you is because you are the player.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Vampires don't have to hide to survive, nor can people be killed in this game for more than a few moments.

Game mechanics. Not lore. We are speaking of two different things. Having permadeath in a MMO is a good way of guaranteeing your player base will be really small.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

The people I am "fixating" on are all the core characters other than the vampires in the Rivenspire story.

They are a couple of people in the middle of dozens of characters. And you are ignoring that the main character of that storyline himself reminds you that they, indeed, have to hide who they are.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

The only one that has any strong bigoted opinion is the duchess. I have to run out to some appointments, but I will look around on the DBs for some of the quests I remember where vampires just want to have some help to be treated like societal equals. Also, I don't remember any of Verandis' clan hiding in shadows, they seemed to be ok standing around doing whatever they felt like in any size crowd of people.

The only DB quest that involves vampires is about you helping the vampire hunter from Greenshade kill vampires. The vampires of Verandis's clan, included Verandis himself, hid from the general populace in the castle, Verandis going as far as disguising himself as a mortal. He is very aware of the risk of exposing himself, and he reminds you of it.

As I said, play the quests again. You seem to have missed a great deal of dialogue.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Anyway I don't see a bias; and the vampires I see with red eyes or white fur that are NPCs don't seem to attract any unwanted attention from other npcs just like we as players don't either, the point of all that stuff is a player telegraph, like blocking or using abilities that lets you know what hand other players are playing with. It's quite safe to assume people in Tamriel don't notice or don't care about those aspects of player and npc appearance. Maybe we should share their indifference to these petty physical differences.

You are either taking non-vampires as vampires, or you are mistaking PCs with NPCs. It isn't safe to assume that people of Tamriel do not care when they directly tell you that they do care.
If you saw the bias, you would most likely avoid it. It is confirmation bias because you are ignoring everything about the game that shouts all the prejudice the Tamrielic people have in order to try to confirm some theory that goes blatantly against almost everything relevant that ever happened in the entire series of Elder Scrolls game.

Abeille wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

So in the end are you saying you wished the game was like the lore, or the lore like the game? Or you think the two are best left separate and un-reconciled because it's better nothing makes sense? Witch flavor of nonsense do you prefer?

Neither. I'm saying that your vision of how people are treated in Tamriel conflicts with the lore of the game because you are ignoring key factors of the narrative. I think that, from a narrative perspective, ZOS (and Bethesda in previous TES game) did exactly what they had to do: They put the gameplay before the lore when it comes to how the player is treated so that they could tell the story and didn't lock people out of content.

That doesn't mean that suddenly the lore doesn't exist, just because some concession had to be made for gameplay reasons.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

As to the Rivenspire stuff, my observations are correct, there aren't 2000 or more npcs in all the game programmed to be in fighting loops killing vampires.

Nope, but there are dozens of NPCs programmed to tell you vampires are monsters. The only reason they do not attack you is because you are the player.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Vampires don't have to hide to survive, nor can people be killed in this game for more than a few moments.

Game mechanics. Not lore. We are speaking of two different things. Having permadeath in a MMO is a good way of guaranteeing your player base will be really small.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

The people I am "fixating" on are all the core characters other than the vampires in the Rivenspire story.

They are a couple of people in the middle of dozens of characters. And you are ignoring that the main character of that storyline himself reminds you that they, indeed, have to hide who they are.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

The only one that has any strong bigoted opinion is the duchess. I have to run out to some appointments, but I will look around on the DBs for some of the quests I remember where vampires just want to have some help to be treated like societal equals. Also, I don't remember any of Verandis' clan hiding in shadows, they seemed to be ok standing around doing whatever they felt like in any size crowd of people.

The only DB quest that involves vampires is about you helping the vampire hunter from Greenshade kill vampires. The vampires of Verandis's clan, included Verandis himself, hid from the general populace in the castle, Verandis going as far as disguising himself as a mortal. He is very aware of the risk of exposing himself, and he reminds you of it.

As I said, play the quests again. You seem to have missed a great deal of dialogue.

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Anyway I don't see a bias; and the vampires I see with red eyes or white fur that are NPCs don't seem to attract any unwanted attention from other npcs just like we as players don't either, the point of all that stuff is a player telegraph, like blocking or using abilities that lets you know what hand other players are playing with. It's quite safe to assume people in Tamriel don't notice or don't care about those aspects of player and npc appearance. Maybe we should share their indifference to these petty physical differences.

You are either taking non-vampires as vampires, or you are mistaking PCs with NPCs. It isn't safe to assume that people of Tamriel do not care when they directly tell you that they do care.
If you saw the bias, you would most likely avoid it. It is confirmation bias because you are ignoring everything about the game that shouts all the prejudice the Tamrielic people have in order to try to confirm some theory that goes blatantly against almost everything relevant that ever happened in the entire series of Elder Scrolls game.

From what I can tell from the back and forth is he's basing is whole argument on ESO. Which anyone that has played the any or all of the previous single-player games in the franchise can tell you that ESO's handling of the franchise isn't even close to the Single Players game reaction between NPC's and the player. Prejudice and racism run rampant in Tamriel. There is a whole profession called vampire hunters, priests of Stendar (which are more like DnD's version of a Cleric), followers of Meridia, and the overall general reaction to anything considered a monster.

Though ESO tries to do what it can to stay true to the franchise, when it comes to NPC/player action/reaction it fails.... horribly. So using it as a guide on how Tamriel denizens live and react to each other is a poor example of how it really is when you compare the rest of the franchise to it on top of the lore.

red_emu wrote: »

If you don't like the look of a vampire. Don't become one.

No need when it is perfectly possible from both a lore and a technical standpoint to be a vampire and look like a mortal.

Abeille wrote: »

red_emu wrote: »

If you don't like the look of a vampire. Don't become one.

No need when it is perfectly possible from both a lore and a technical standpoint to be a vampire and look like a mortal.

There seems to be a lot of people who don't know about the lore.

Abeille wrote: »

Nestor wrote: »

Vampires are Vampires. They should look, act and be reacted to like a Vampire. That is Lore. You want to be a Vampire, look like one. If you don't want to look like a Vampire, then don't be one.

There is nothing lore-breaking about a vampire looking like a mortal.

This should be stickied at the top of every vampire thread. Maybe we wouldn't get so many "if you don't like the look, then don't become one" comments every time someone asks to look normal.

All the responces of 'If you want the benefits, accept the cons'.... what world are you living on?
The guards don't attack Vamps. Merchants buy and sell to Vamps. Animals don't throw a hissy fit when they get near.
So how the F is looking like *** and the tattoos being bleached out anything other then y'all being vindictive because some people want to be decent looking Vamps?

Nyghthowler wrote: »

All the responces of 'If you want the benefits, accept the cons'.... what world are you living on?
The guards don't attack Vamps. Merchants buy and sell to Vamps. Animals don't throw a hissy fit when they get near.
So how the F is looking like *** and the tattoos being bleached out anything other then y'all being vindictive because some people want to be decent looking Vamps?

It seems like some people like being vindictive. Even when it comes to stuff that doesnt affect them in any way.
Fashion per second is important for some people but its not like it affects pvp or game balance or whatever.

I want to look normal and be a vampire at the same time, they could do what you suggested as make it a max tier rank for cosmetic but instead of showing vampire in combat we just get an extra -5% fire dmg debuff for using it instead