Recremen wrote: »

Which races changed over time? Is it "none of them"? I'm pretty sure that's the answer.

Well, I suppose that tells us something about the quality of your thoughts. Nedes? Atmorans? Yokudans? Ring a bell?

Recremen wrote: »

We do have some that changed via magickal means, such as the Chimer changing to the Dunmer, the Aldmer changing to the Altmer...

...which was not magical at all, just... you guessed it.
The aldmer who settled the summerset isles changed over time into the altmer, not through divine intervention. So did the ones that changed into chimer, though turning those to dunmer was obviously a daedric fiat, same with the orsimer origin.

Also, its kinda a point of pride with the altmer that they remain closest to altmer. You'd think they'd have noticed some great magical transformation messing up their story there, huh?

Recremen wrote: »

The argument is not stronger as there is still no actual references to base it on.

No reference... except the racial descriptions in the lore, you mean?

My point stands, when a racial trait is acquired by divine intervention, like for example orsimer getting their mystical elven blood transformed into physical toughness when trinimac became malacath, then it follows that this trait is even more coupled with the race then a trait merely aquired through generations upon generations of living in ther lands of ice and snow, right? Because the latter could plausibly be gotten by another tribe living there (and thus the case could be made for reachmen having a mix of breton and nord passives); but something that took aedric or daedric power to bring into being?

Recremen wrote: »

Pick a race and go over their creation myth...

...and you get only myth and self-congratulations, yeah, yeah, we know.
But the more objective racial descriptions are a different matter, because while the former are the race themselves telling a story that makes them look good in their eyes, the latter is basically the original developers telling the players how they wanted each race to be.

Recremen wrote: »

We don't see adaptations among real human populations with that sort of power.

Really?
You are saying, if I get my pasty white arse down to africa I will be handling the burning sun just as well as a pigmentally enhanced african native? Puh-leeze!

Recremen wrote: »

First, you are using the in-game character select or user manual descriptions, which are being used to explain the racial bonuses, as the definitive lore source, when that (the game mechanics) is literally the thing I am calling into question.

Yes, I am doing exactly that.
Because the lore is not limited to the in-game lore, even more important then that are the developer mandated descriptions. Because the in-game lore is always a subjective thing, written to be shaded through the fictional origins point of view... but the developer descriptions is the -actual- makers of the world telling the players how they decided things should be.

Sorry if that is unclear to you.

Recremen wrote: »

Second, while I think the idea of an initial leg up with equal caps is much less onerous, it is still goes fundamentally against the complexities that we see in actual character actions across both the lore and the NPCs.

And I say it doesn't. No more then D&D giving elves +1 to bow and longsword did. Does that mean every elf in D&D campaining must be an archer or swordsman? I have seen enough elven mages to know this is not so. Played one or two, even.

And once again, a race having a perk that makes them a bit better at one thing does not mean every single one of that race must be that one thing, nor does it mean everyone who is that thing must have had a perk giving them an edge at it.

Recremen wrote: »

There's just no reason in Morrowind, for example, for Redguards to start with such huge negatives to their mental states compared to other races, especially when you can choose your class to indicate what your character was already supposed to be trained for.

Except the developers made it so anyway, most likely to depict those races (seeing how the redguards share that penalty with nords and male orcs) are more physically inclined then mental. Which makes quite a bit of sense considering their depiction, yes?

Recremen wrote: »

I don't know how many of the in-game lorebooks you've read, but we constantly see characters acting and excelling outside the supposed calling of their race.

Once again, you are postulating a connection where none exists.
A race having a perk benefitting one thing does not mean every one of that race will be that thing.
Someone being that thing does not mean they must have had a perk benefitting it either.

Recremen wrote: »

Additionally, you seem to not understand how exceptions and majorities work. If people acting out of the expectations for their race is an exception, then they don't become the majority when you examine a larger portion of the population.

Once again, racial trait is NOT an expectation.
Its an perk, one that some will develop, and others won't.
Citing examples from those who deceloped in other directions then the one their race has an advantage in means nothing, because -duh- of course the majority will develop as needed by their life and not as advantaged by their race. So if an altmer grows up as the heir to an farm, they will develop farming skills and not sorcery. But that will not exactly make them "act out of the expection", now will it? Because there is NO expection, no matter how magical altmer blood may be, noone expects all altmer to be mages, just like noone expects all bosmer to be archers, or all orcs to be warriors, or all khajiit to be thiev... no, wait, that last one is expected I guess!

The one place where expectations come into it is the realm of heroes. No farmers here, just fighters and mages, rogues and whatever else gets the job done. Here there are expectations... like that a wood elf will win the archery contest again this year, or that the "best spellslinger" prize will most likely be contested by a breton and a altmer.
And if a argonian wins the archery contest, or a nord trounces both the breton and altmer contestants... that would be an exception, and thus noticed more then five years of bosmer archery wins of altmer mage prizes.
Still doesn't mean that argonian traded his swimming speed for bow skillz, or the nord handed in his cold resistance for more magica, I say!

Recremen wrote: »

This is also not about racial advantages being underdeveloped as there is still no lore evidence for those existing.

Wrong.
Racial descriptions.
Right from the "overgods" of the world, the great makers, the first creators, the ones who made the big decisions.

You may want to keep nitpicking that this is not lore because you seem to limit the term to the in-game lore... but as I said, the objective OoC descriptions are just as much part of the game lore, and stronger then any in-game book as they are not shaded by any subjective filter.

Recremen wrote: »

And here's where we come back around to why game design decisions are a bad place to pick up lore secrets. Take a look back at all the racials through all the TES games. I know I did. There are loads of inconsistencies and one game (Battlespire) where there WERE no racial passives! Which Altmer racials are the true lore, for instance?

Read it again. Not the stats, but the racial -descriptions-!
See?

Even in TES:Battlespire, they had the "racial traits" in the race descriptions. And those are the "true lore" you ask for, while the game stats are just the depictions in that particular game.

And that is the core of my argument...

I stand by the descriptions, and argue about the depictions.
You seem to want to throw it all away, give the work of the original developers the finger, and make up your own ideas.
And I disagree with that, I still say we should stay within the descriptions, and change the depictions in the game rules to make them less... exclusive. Make it possible for people to play as they want, even if in some combinations they might have to play a bit more to reach the same effect - but have a way that -lets- them reach the same final effect, no matter where they start from.

Recremen wrote: »

It's also pretty silly to try and give a final dismissal of any attempts at criticism with a "you don't own the license for the game so nuts to you" argument.

That was not what I said.
I said, if you want to -change the basics-, you have to buy the license for that privilege.
Or make up your own fantasy world, with your own lore and rules.
But starting any criticism of an -elder scrolls- game with "throw away the elder scrolls flavor and do what I say" is pretty arrogant I think... so I for one try to make my suggestions in ways that keep to the flavor of the elder scrolls, and work with the depictions of them in the game rules, instead of saying "forget everything we had in the prior games and do something completely different"

The real question is, how broken will the game be after this change?

Something is gonna be fugged up, we should all know that. It's just what and for how long.

I look forward to 10hrs of down time due to having to fix problems after this update