I do have an interesting point to make regarding that Phylogeny book. It would appear that ZoS inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) disputed the 'facts' of this book by showing a mixed race family of Nord and Dunmer. You will note that the Nord father had Nord sons with his Dunmer Wife. Interestingly, the 'Nord' sons had a grayer hue to their skin and they had that Bretony pointy eared thing going on and slanted eyes. They still very much looked like a Nord both in bulk, in brow, in jaw, and in other features, nevertheless they also did in fact manifest features of the mother.

This is quite interesting because Racial Phylogeny states that the primary traits revealed in such unions would result in offspring that had the traits of the mother. This is clearly not the case with the family in Stonefalls. I noticed it immediately as someone who always took the time to painstakingly read the stories in the books in game. I try to notice the clues because they were put there for a reason. I don't always remember all of the clues or recognize things.

Interestingly, a friend of mine in game (Teo Amodi) pointed something out about the Summerset expansion that I never realized. The Altmer call unwanted people Nebarra. This is strikingly similar to N'wah used by the Dunmer. I personally think this was intentional and was meant to represent linguistic creep. I like noticing these little details.

You make a fair point @Recremen that the in game texts reveal truths while also making huge mistakes. These 'authors' represent an unreliable narrator. They put us in the mindset of the world in which we are playing. I had always presumed Racial Phylogeny to be true in part because the Breton people always looked so human. A scullery maid who caught the eye of a Direnni lord would have resulted in a child that could never be accepted by Ayleids as an heir. This whole bit of theme fits the narrative of racial phylogeny. I suspect Ayleid mothers would have gotten rid of their children (they were a fairly brutal people after all). At any regard I also think you can glean truths or rather possible truths that the developers are trying to convey. They sprinkle the game with all manner of hints and it is up to the player to consider what fits the world. In a way this is how we try to understand reality where we live and this is in part what makes this unreliable narrator so interesting as we try to dig through the weeds of what is false and what is 'real' in the elder scrolls universe.

One thing is clear to me though in the series: There are some mystical differences between the races and some genetic ones. What that means exactly in a magical fantasy world I do not know. I'm not sure we can use Gregor Mendel's understanding of genetics much less anything more in depth and modern in an elder scrolls world. Lets be clear it is a fictitious world and in order to understand that fiction you have to understand the authors intent. This is made even more complicated by the fact that the authors keep changing. What the game currently is might be viewed as an abomination by its original designer. Maybe those original designers prefer what the lore has become. At any regard the only way we would know is if they were to come out and say, and I suspect that NDA's effect some of what they are able to say. I'm also not sure it would be good if they did. Ultimately though in my own humble opinion I think it is important that the racial differences be included in the game without them marring the possibility of character choice for any race. I know people who wouldn't even play ESO because race was too important. I agree with their sentiment though not as deeply obviously, as I've been playing since the game was in beta.

Lapin_Logic wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

I was looking at another of one of those...polls, this one about some talk of upcoming "rebalancing" of racial passives.

Can we just STOP tying character passives to RACE?

Nope.

The passives are what define the race.

Racial profiling is bad

Not when it's applied to actual races that actually do have innate strengths and weaknesses.

*** sapiens do not have different "races". That concept has been thoroughly debunked by scientists who have literally mapped the human-genome. In other words: there isn't enough distinguishing traits between different ethnicities to be considered different races. A black-skinned man living in the United States has just as many genetic similarities and differences with a white-skinned man living in Norway that he does with someone living in Africa. So that's why it's bad to do it in humans. Because it's not real and just an invention by society.

But in this context - these are elves and orcs we are talking about, actual - different - races. Think of it like different breeds of animals that actually do have different physical and personality traits and are significantly different from one another genetically.

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

laereal wrote: »

Look i like the lore and all but it's really not practical to tie significant stats and battle effectiveness to certain races in a competitive mmo environment. People who care about that sort of thing will always pick the one that is the most useful for them. It would actually be better if ZOS just let people choose certain sets of passives themselves with the race they want, and then they're free to rp their character through 'natural affinity' and their progression with the game. I would allow one racial passive for each one that would NOT give them a large tactical advantage over other races in trials or pvp like faster swim speed, pickpocket chance, or slight decrease in detection area.

Edit: lol @programcanaan i totally missed your post because of my long delayed response. You can see that i agree with you.

There is no lore argument in favour of racial passives. People making that argument are grasping at straws.

The lore states that certain races are more likely to have a propensity for either magic or physical combat, but that's it. It doesn't state that Redguards cannot be mages and that High Elves can't be warriors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Nord and Imperial mages (Shalidor and Abnur Tharn), Breton warriors (Lion Guard), or Dunmer assassins (Morag Tong).

Uh, nobody ever said the lore states Redguards can't be mages or Altmer can't be warriors. In fact we've all been arguing the exact opposite.

But that's exactly what racial passives imply.

Shalidor and Abnur Tharn are/were among the strongest mages alive.

The Lion Guard are one of the most prestigious military guards in Tamriel.

The Morag Tong are arguably the most feared assassin cult in existence.

There would be no way to reach those heights if these races were collectively limited by their genetics. Clearly, Nords and Imperials can become gifted mages of the same stature as High Elves and Dark Elves. Clearly Bretons and Dark Elves can become gifted warriors and assassins of the same stature as Redguards and Khajiit. There is nothing innate that limits individuals in a race from becoming either expert mages or warriors. Your player character is an individual that makes a choice to become either a mage or a warrior. There should be nothing to limit them from reaching optimal performance in either role.

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

laereal wrote: »

Look i like the lore and all but it's really not practical to tie significant stats and battle effectiveness to certain races in a competitive mmo environment. People who care about that sort of thing will always pick the one that is the most useful for them. It would actually be better if ZOS just let people choose certain sets of passives themselves with the race they want, and then they're free to rp their character through 'natural affinity' and their progression with the game. I would allow one racial passive for each one that would NOT give them a large tactical advantage over other races in trials or pvp like faster swim speed, pickpocket chance, or slight decrease in detection area.

Edit: lol @programcanaan i totally missed your post because of my long delayed response. You can see that i agree with you.

There is no lore argument in favour of racial passives. People making that argument are grasping at straws.

The lore states that certain races are more likely to have a propensity for either magic or physical combat, but that's it. It doesn't state that Redguards cannot be mages and that High Elves can't be warriors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Nord and Imperial mages (Shalidor and Abnur Tharn), Breton warriors (Lion Guard), or Dunmer assassins (Morag Tong).

Uh, nobody ever said the lore states Redguards can't be mages or Altmer can't be warriors. In fact we've all been arguing the exact opposite.

But that's exactly what racial passives imply.

No, not even a little bit.

The racial passive that gives Redguards extra stamina means.........Redguards have extra stamina.

They can be mages. Nothing is preventing them from being mages. Nothing is preventing them from being good mages. Not one iota of lore or gameplay mechanics says they can't be mages.

It's keeping them from being as powerful as High Elf mages.

We see in the lore that plenty of non-elven races can reach the same heights of magical prowess as elves. This is simply not possible within ESO due to racial passives.

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

laereal wrote: »

Look i like the lore and all but it's really not practical to tie significant stats and battle effectiveness to certain races in a competitive mmo environment. People who care about that sort of thing will always pick the one that is the most useful for them. It would actually be better if ZOS just let people choose certain sets of passives themselves with the race they want, and then they're free to rp their character through 'natural affinity' and their progression with the game. I would allow one racial passive for each one that would NOT give them a large tactical advantage over other races in trials or pvp like faster swim speed, pickpocket chance, or slight decrease in detection area.

Edit: lol @programcanaan i totally missed your post because of my long delayed response. You can see that i agree with you.

There is no lore argument in favour of racial passives. People making that argument are grasping at straws.

The lore states that certain races are more likely to have a propensity for either magic or physical combat, but that's it. It doesn't state that Redguards cannot be mages and that High Elves can't be warriors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Nord and Imperial mages (Shalidor and Abnur Tharn), Breton warriors (Lion Guard), or Dunmer assassins (Morag Tong).

Uh, nobody ever said the lore states Redguards can't be mages or Altmer can't be warriors. In fact we've all been arguing the exact opposite.

But that's exactly what racial passives imply.

No, not even a little bit.

The racial passive that gives Redguards extra stamina means.........Redguards have extra stamina.

They can be mages. Nothing is preventing them from being mages. Nothing is preventing them from being good mages. Not one iota of lore or gameplay mechanics says they can't be mages.

It's keeping them from being as powerful as High Elf mages.

We see in the lore that plenty of non-elven races can reach the same heights of magical prowess as elves. This is simply not possible within ESO due to racial passives.

If by that you exclusively mean the potential mathematical limits in leaderboard numbers then yeah. You'd have to make the races completely meaningless to get past that. You'd also have to get rid of classes and gear sets and builds and any other variations in character stats. Basically you'd have to strip ESO of everything, well, Elder Scrolls.

Outside of the absolute top slots on leaderboards though, your argument falls completely flat. Practically speaking, nobody is going to notice or care that an Altmer mage does 100 more DPS than a Reguard mage with everything except their passives being identical. You think that Altmer is really going to lord it over everyone else that his fireball burned that zombie into a pile of ash just slightly hotter than their fireballs burned their zombies into piles of ash? (Actually, come to think of it, an Altmer probably would do that. ) Better question, do you think anyone is actually going to be impressed by it?

Again, nothing is preventing you from being a powerful Redguard mage. Nothing except your own obsession with mathematical perfection anyway.

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

laereal wrote: »

Look i like the lore and all but it's really not practical to tie significant stats and battle effectiveness to certain races in a competitive mmo environment. People who care about that sort of thing will always pick the one that is the most useful for them. It would actually be better if ZOS just let people choose certain sets of passives themselves with the race they want, and then they're free to rp their character through 'natural affinity' and their progression with the game. I would allow one racial passive for each one that would NOT give them a large tactical advantage over other races in trials or pvp like faster swim speed, pickpocket chance, or slight decrease in detection area.

Edit: lol @programcanaan i totally missed your post because of my long delayed response. You can see that i agree with you.

There is no lore argument in favour of racial passives. People making that argument are grasping at straws.

The lore states that certain races are more likely to have a propensity for either magic or physical combat, but that's it. It doesn't state that Redguards cannot be mages and that High Elves can't be warriors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Nord and Imperial mages (Shalidor and Abnur Tharn), Breton warriors (Lion Guard), or Dunmer assassins (Morag Tong).

Uh, nobody ever said the lore states Redguards can't be mages or Altmer can't be warriors. In fact we've all been arguing the exact opposite.

But that's exactly what racial passives imply.

No, not even a little bit.

The racial passive that gives Redguards extra stamina means.........Redguards have extra stamina.

They can be mages. Nothing is preventing them from being mages. Nothing is preventing them from being good mages. Not one iota of lore or gameplay mechanics says they can't be mages.

It's keeping them from being as powerful as High Elf mages.

We see in the lore that plenty of non-elven races can reach the same heights of magical prowess as elves. This is simply not possible within ESO due to racial passives.

If by that you exclusively mean the potential mathematical limits in leaderboard numbers then yeah. You'd have to make the races completely meaningless to get past that. You'd also have to get rid of classes and gear sets and builds and any other variations in character stats. Basically you'd have to strip ESO of everything, well, Elder Scrolls.

Outside of the absolute top slots on leaderboards though, your argument falls completely flat. Practically speaking, nobody is going to notice or care that an Altmer mage does 100 more DPS than a Reguard mage with everything except their passives being identical. You think that Altmer is really going to lord it over everyone else that his fireball burned that zombie into a pile of ash just slightly hotter than their fireballs burned their zombies into piles of ash? (Actually, come to think of it, an Altmer probably would do that. ) Better question, do you think anyone is actually going to be impressed by it?

Again, nothing is preventing you from being a powerful Redguard mage. Nothing except your own obsession with mathematical perfection anyway.

1. Why would you get rid of gear? Any race can wear any gear. No player is limited in their choice of gear. And many argue for the removal of classes since they don't have a place in the TES universe.

2. Racial passives have a significant impact on performance. The +10% max magicka that "magicka races" receive can add 4k magicka to your character, or in other words, around 400 effective spell damage (1000 magicka = ~95 effective spell damage). That adds several thousand points of DPS, not "100", while also improving sustain by allowing for more spell casts. This is something that both a noob and a vet will find valuable.

1. Because set x performs 3% better than set y.

2. Which is something that the devs are looking at right now. That doesn't mean they need to go away or that their existance is in any way preventing you from being a Reguard mage.

Ruckly wrote: »

Morrowind has different racial passives.

Oblivion has different racial passives.

Skyrim has different racial passives.

Behold Elder Scrolls Online has different racial passives.

If you need the absolute best re-roll. That is how rpgs work. That is how Elder Scrolls works. If you want the optimal race for what you are doing then pick that race. I have never had to re-roll I like my racial passives as they are. And the reason for this is it being an rpg I plan things out ahead of time so I don't run into these difficulties. If I see at level 20 it's not going to work I re-roll until I get it right. Elder Scrolls on the highest difficulty is supposed to be difficult. And racial passives only become relevant on the highest difficulty. If you have the wrong racial passives and you can't complete the hardest content then maybe the highest difficulty is too difficult for you. Maybe you should play at one or two difficulty settings lower.

And there is a transmutation to make your character look however you want the ugly race argument doesn't...some quote by Nietzsche...that doesn't hold water.

Something I can't plan out ahead of time is a change to my racial passives which define my character because it is an Elder Scrolls game and why would that ever happen in an Elder Scrolls game?

I feel like I have to counter this argument at least once a year, particularly giving actual history in this game. The Racial passives have changed for some races in such a way that they have at times fundamentally changed what that race and build was good for and good at. I like to bring up the Khajiit Magician specifically because the change to the definition of what a weapon crit is fundamentally changed the Khajiit build. Add in the fact that there were soft caps and Khajiit mages were actually reasonable builds at one point. If you are relying on building your character based on what the passives are like at the time of character generation you are woefully mistaken. I could also make other examples such as how my Imperial use to get hordes of HP by dropping caltrops on mobs, or volleys, etc. They didn't like this and so they changed the definitions behind Red Diamond, and voila Red Diamond became one of the biggest pile of *** passives you can have. Thanks ZoS, I'm glad I overpaid for a race. I could also cite multiple Argonian rewrites and other changes but I'm going to stop there. Your notion that we the players should have to pay for a character race change token every time ZoS plays havoc on racial passives is preposterous. I suspect you haven't thought this issue through though.

I personally think the way forward (as I always have) is to make the racials less important. Before the CP system was released I was suggesting they put some core soft caps on things and that all the stars in the CP system could replicate racial passives. Voila. A dunmer fire resistance would start off higher but ultimately anyone could give a dunmer a run for their money in fire resistance if they TRAINED in it through serious mystical focus (points in the CP system). The same could have been said for any other little twist of the dial on a character. This was my recommendation and clearly they had no interest in that. Perhaps it was for the best that they didn't, maybe they should have. At this point though there are other paths they could take offered by many other players. There is no shortage of ideas here as I've seen this topic come up over and over. Perhaps this is why I'm getting weary of it. I think most players could be made happy with the right (balanced) rules system. Instead of insulting one another and bickering over petty details of whether or not alleles even exist in Elder Scrolls, why don't we talk about something productive like how to accomplish the end goal? I think we could rally around that most likely.

Riverlynn wrote: »

How about going down the road where all the races have the same potential, but some races take a longer/harder route to achieve it?

For example, sorcery comes very naturally for a High Elf, but not so much for a Nord. I can achieve the same level of passive bonus' for my Nord if I choose to, but it will take me much, much longer. Or I can choose the easier route, and just roll a High Elf.

All the racial passives are still there, but you can achieve other/different ones over time with a bit (or a lot) of effort.

Just a thought.

I like this mindset. It is closer to the gameplay of previous games.

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

laereal wrote: »

Look i like the lore and all but it's really not practical to tie significant stats and battle effectiveness to certain races in a competitive mmo environment. People who care about that sort of thing will always pick the one that is the most useful for them. It would actually be better if ZOS just let people choose certain sets of passives themselves with the race they want, and then they're free to rp their character through 'natural affinity' and their progression with the game. I would allow one racial passive for each one that would NOT give them a large tactical advantage over other races in trials or pvp like faster swim speed, pickpocket chance, or slight decrease in detection area.

Edit: lol @programcanaan i totally missed your post because of my long delayed response. You can see that i agree with you.

There is no lore argument in favour of racial passives. People making that argument are grasping at straws.

The lore states that certain races are more likely to have a propensity for either magic or physical combat, but that's it. It doesn't state that Redguards cannot be mages and that High Elves can't be warriors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Nord and Imperial mages (Shalidor and Abnur Tharn), Breton warriors (Lion Guard), or Dunmer assassins (Morag Tong).

Uh, nobody ever said the lore states Redguards can't be mages or Altmer can't be warriors. In fact we've all been arguing the exact opposite.

But that's exactly what racial passives imply.

No, not even a little bit.

The racial passive that gives Redguards extra stamina means.........Redguards have extra stamina.

They can be mages. Nothing is preventing them from being mages. Nothing is preventing them from being good mages. Not one iota of lore or gameplay mechanics says they can't be mages.

It's keeping them from being as powerful as High Elf mages.

We see in the lore that plenty of non-elven races can reach the same heights of magical prowess as elves. This is simply not possible within ESO due to racial passives.

If by that you exclusively mean the potential mathematical limits in leaderboard numbers then yeah. You'd have to make the races completely meaningless to get past that. You'd also have to get rid of classes and gear sets and builds and any other variations in character stats. Basically you'd have to strip ESO of everything, well, Elder Scrolls.

Outside of the absolute top slots on leaderboards though, your argument falls completely flat. Practically speaking, nobody is going to notice or care that an Altmer mage does 100 more DPS than a Reguard mage with everything except their passives being identical. You think that Altmer is really going to lord it over everyone else that his fireball burned that zombie into a pile of ash just slightly hotter than their fireballs burned their zombies into piles of ash? (Actually, come to think of it, an Altmer probably would do that. ) Better question, do you think anyone is actually going to be impressed by it?

Again, nothing is preventing you from being a powerful Redguard mage. Nothing except your own obsession with mathematical perfection anyway.

1. Why would you get rid of gear? Any race can wear any gear. No player is limited in their choice of gear. And many argue for the removal of classes since they don't have a place in the TES universe.

2. Racial passives have a significant impact on performance. The +10% max magicka that "magicka races" receive can add 4k magicka to your character, or in other words, around 400 effective spell damage (1000 magicka = ~95 effective spell damage). That adds several thousand points of DPS, not "100", while also improving sustain by allowing for more spell casts. This is something that both a noob and a vet will find valuable.

1. Because set x performs 3% better than set y.

2. Which is something that the devs are looking at right now. That doesn't mean they need to go away or that their existance is in any way preventing you from being a Reguard mage.

1. But everyone can wear set X and Y, so your point is moot.

2. Again, these passives prevent a Redguard from being as powerful a mage as a High Elf

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Riverlynn wrote: »

How about going down the road where all the races have the same potential, but some races take a longer/harder route to achieve it?...

That's how it used to be!

In elder scrolls games of days past, where there was a cap on ability scores, and some races just got a leg up towards it. Like, everyone could reach 100 intelligence, Altmer and bretons just got +10 from the start as part of their racial package; and so on.

And I would really love to see the ESO system go back towards something like that!
its why I try to come up with ideas along those lines...

Well, just to be a little bit more accurate, that wasn't all they got. For example, in Oblivion and Morrowind the starting stats were also different between genders within each race, which added a touch more realism but these days would probably just *** off the noise makers to no end. In addition, each race had skill bonuses, resistances, and powers.

Just sayin, there was more to it than a mere leg up on stat development.

Racial passives can be changed if there is some nuclear war happened and all races mutating to something else. Otherwise bad decision.

Ruckly wrote: »

dodgehopper_ESO wrote: »

Ruckly wrote: »

Morrowind has different racial passives.

Oblivion has different racial passives.

Skyrim has different racial passives.

Behold Elder Scrolls Online has different racial passives.

If you need the absolute best re-roll. That is how rpgs work. That is how Elder Scrolls works. If you want the optimal race for what you are doing then pick that race. I have never had to re-roll I like my racial passives as they are. And the reason for this is it being an rpg I plan things out ahead of time so I don't run into these difficulties. If I see at level 20 it's not going to work I re-roll until I get it right. Elder Scrolls on the highest difficulty is supposed to be difficult. And racial passives only become relevant on the highest difficulty. If you have the wrong racial passives and you can't complete the hardest content then maybe the highest difficulty is too difficult for you. Maybe you should play at one or two difficulty settings lower.

And there is a transmutation to make your character look however you want the ugly race argument doesn't...some quote by Nietzsche...that doesn't hold water.

Something I can't plan out ahead of time is a change to my racial passives which define my character because it is an Elder Scrolls game and why would that ever happen in an Elder Scrolls game?

I feel like I have to counter this argument at least once a year, particularly giving actual history in this game. The Racial passives have changed for some races in such a way that they have at times fundamentally changed what that race and build was good for and good at. I like to bring up the Khajiit Magician specifically because the change to the definition of what a weapon crit is fundamentally changed the Khajiit build. Add in the fact that there were soft caps and Khajiit mages were actually reasonable builds at one point. If you are relying on building your character based on what the passives are like at the time of character generation you are woefully mistaken. I could also make other examples such as how my Imperial use to get hordes of HP by dropping caltrops on mobs, or volleys, etc. They didn't like this and so they changed the definitions behind Red Diamond, and voila Red Diamond became one of the biggest pile of *** passives you can have. Thanks ZoS, I'm glad I overpaid for a race. I could also cite multiple Argonian rewrites and other changes but I'm going to stop there. Your notion that we the players should have to pay for a character race change token every time ZoS plays havoc on racial passives is preposterous. I suspect you haven't thought this issue through though.

I personally think the way forward (as I always have) is to make the racials less important. Before the CP system was released I was suggesting they put some core soft caps on things and that all the stars in the CP system could replicate racial passives. Voila. A dunmer fire resistance would start off higher but ultimately anyone could give a dunmer a run for their money in fire resistance if they TRAINED in it through serious mystical focus (points in the CP system). The same could have been said for any other little twist of the dial on a character. This was my recommendation and clearly they had no interest in that. Perhaps it was for the best that they didn't, maybe they should have. At this point though there are other paths they could take offered by many other players. There is no shortage of ideas here as I've seen this topic come up over and over. Perhaps this is why I'm getting weary of it. I think most players could be made happy with the right (balanced) rules system. Instead of insulting one another and bickering over petty details of whether or not alleles even exist in Elder Scrolls, why don't we talk about something productive like how to accomplish the end goal? I think we could rally around that most likely.

The racial passives might have changed but that doesn't mean they should change. Universalizing everything is ridiculous. Maybe at release it would have made sense. Now we have classes and races. Racial passives should remain as they are. If they do then you would not need a race change token if you planned ahead.

To put in very simply: going forward racial passives should in no way change.

Note: above argument is a rebuttal of making everything the same. My main argument is as above stated this is not my main argument.

I've personally had multiple character builds change because of race change passive adjustments by the developers. You are writing as though the inevitable will not come. They are going to change the racial passives yet again. I'm hopeful they do it in such a way as to avoid something that upends the apple cart or balances the game more in line with the way Elder Scrolls games use to be.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Sorry but as already stated, interbreeding is not evolution.

Sure is.
Well, part of it anyhow.
Interbreeding happens, new traits are formed, if they perform better then the old trait, natural selection will favor them and the race evolves into the new direction, and if they don't perform better, the new strain dies out (unless someone interferes, like frigging dog breeders turning near-wolves into pugs and whatnot - though I guess that's just un-natural selection in the end)

Okay yeah you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and no authority to speak when it comes to evolution. Interbreeding between two species is literally definitionally not viable. A species is a group of organisms that can mate to produce viable, fertile offspring. You cannot have two different species interbreed and produce "new traits" as their offspring, by definition, are not fertile and cannot pass on those traits. You can't just make up new evolutionary concepts to try and make them fit into elder scrolls lore. You've gone past unconvincing and leaped straight into the pit of "making *** up".

TheShadowScout wrote: »

True. From our point of view. It seems to me the text indicates that the people back then had a somewhat different view about what "human" means, and the bretons were perhaps not quite fitting. Maybe not big enough? Maybe not burly enough? Maybe not hairy enough? We will never know, but all those have been used at times to denounce other humans as "different"...

That's quite the unsupported speculation. We don't have any indication that their perception of human has changed over time, especially since this Nedic population also came from Atmora and, presumably, was known to them. It's said that the attacking Nords reasoned the Bretons were descendants of the lost Nedic tribe, so it's pretty clear they knew they existed. And as discussed, other accounts (and their modern appearance) suggest that Bertons had not changed their appearance from the initial Nedic population. It is therefore more likely that this lorebook is not giving an honest account of that particular engagement, or that the original histories it would have been based off were inaccurate. If we instead choose to believe this account over other sources, we have to somehow explain why Bretons DO look human, and there isn't anything to go on for that.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

THANK YOU!
That is -just- what I kept saying!
Thet the "lore accounts" you use to prop up your hypothesis are as faulty as anything else. One says they kept their nedic appearance, the other says they changed until they were hardly recogizable by their non-changed human cousins.

So, what now? Did they change, or not?
You may ignore half the lore and say they did not.
I keep with they did, as it makes more logical sense after interbreeding with the direnni until they get called "manmer"

I'm not "ignoring half the lore", why lie? I've offered my explanation and it's a lot better and well-supported than your hot mess of contrarian and self-contradictory statements. Bretons look very clearly human, so unless you want to argue that they went through yet another change (and at that point, using your own argument, why would they still call themselves Bretons?). Your argument should at least be internally consistent, but you seem to just want to pick things I say and arbitrarily argue the opposite, regardless of how ridiculous a position it is.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

...not my insistance, part of the lore. You know, the one from the in-game lorebooks you so heavily depend on, or does that only count for thise bits that support your vierwpoints and not the rest?

See, you can either ignore parts of the lore, but then the party you base your arguments on are just as invalid. Or you can accept that ALL the in-world books are subjective, and ask after the story behind them... but then you cannot use them to "prove" anything, but need to look at more objective info that answers the question: "What was the -intent- behind the fluff?"

I didn't point out that it was at your own insistence because I disagree with that bit of lore (although there is, in fact, some evidence that it's not gospel truth), I said it to point out the internal inconsistencies with your argument. At this point I can't tell if you're being obtuse about it on purpose because you have no rebuttal, or if this is all-natural and authentic opacity.

And there is more to reading lorebooks than the extremes of "everything is fake" and "everything is canon". You should be able to form opinions on the veracity of some particular statement in a lorebook and, if you're feeling scholarly, back it up with corroborating sources, give explanations for contradictory claims, etc. I have repeatedly done this.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Personally I think the magical change theory has a lot to it in the bosmers case. Moreso then the "mannish wives" interbreeding theory (unless they also interbred with deer, to get those cute horns... yeah, personally I think pacts with anture spirits the more likely one)

But what vexes me so is that you make statements without proof; yet act like they are unarguablely fact. Which they are not. You keep using cherry-picked lore to support your point of view, yet fail to accept that it is faulty, since half of it is contradicted in the same lore you hold up so high. And you disregard any bit of lore that you do not like, especially the bits I go for to find the objective intent of the game makers behind the fluff.

"Proof" is a bit of a strong word but I've absolutely given evidence for all of my claims, from a broad variety of sources, and I've given compelling explanations for any and every contradiction. I haven't "disregarded" anything. Why lie about me cherry-picking lore? Or is that just what you do when you don't have any arguments left and can't properly counter someone else's statements?

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Now... if you had changed that, and said instead "I, @Recremen happen to think the bosmer most likely changed from aldmer settlers to the wood elves we know through a pact with Y'ffre", I would not have argued in the first place, but said" Yup, I think so too" But if you say "the bosmer magically changed" as a statement of fact without ample proof (and I reckon you know well ennough that there is no mention of any sudden change from aldmer to bosmer in the lore, unlike with orsimer or dunmer coming into being), then I will argue against that - not the content which I happen to agree with, but the absolute statement.
My apologies if that was unclear.

If you have such a hangup about the basic format of persuasive arguments then that's 100% on you. It's not on me to preface every single argument with "I think" or "it's my opinion that this happened", it's my job to present my case and give evidence for it. I've done so, and you taking issue with some tiny, completely unnecessary nuance of language is just petulant. And for the record, there is evidence to support the Bosmer being suddenly changed, as per books like Words of Clan Mother Ahnissi to her Favored Daughter. It describes Nirni letting Y'ffer change some of the forest people into Bosmer as a moment, after which Khajiit and Bosmer were no longer of the same litter. But hey I guess reading and doing the actual work of gathering evidence is just too hard.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

While speculative, I think that if we keep seeing this pattern of elves moving from Summerset and getting magically changed, and given that there haven't been nearly enough generations for these superficial appearance changes to have an evolutionary cause, it is more likely that change of this nature on Tamriel is a magical process. If we want to get Deep Lore about it, the Aldmer were descended from the most Anu-related spirits to begin with, meaning they were least metaphysically aligned with change. Thus if they are going to change it makes much more sense to be a sudden magical process rather than some physical one. It's just not in their nature.

True enough.
But unfortunately for your side of the greater argument... that narrative would be a stronger indication for racial passives then any natural change. Just sayin.

Magical changes do not make racials more likely, it is just the only thing left after ruling out an evolutionary cause. The burden is still on us to show that it actually happened, otherwise we're speculating with nothing to back it up, at which point we can just make up any argument we want and say "it might be true because magic!" That is not how evidence works. We're looking for a specific mention of the mechanism by which racials function, something like "And then Zenithar blessed the Imperials with silver tongues so they forever had a knack for trade and commerce" or "and so Y'ffre blesed the Bosmer with the steadiest hands so that if they took up the bow they'd be like, really good" or other such nonsense. We do not observe that happening, though. It should not be that hard to find supporting accounts when they go into such detail in their creation myths.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

This "bronze" skin of the Ayleids is also silly. The only Ayleid we see has no metalic color to his skin, and in fact looks so close to one of the Altmer presets in the character creator that I truly don't know if it's actually different or just a trick of the lighting.

Let's look at an Ayleid then:

...compared to an Altmer:

Like I said, so similar that I can't be sure any difference isn't just a trick of the lighting (or a SweetFX setting like your second gif has).

And digging a little more, I found this video which shows yet more Ayleid characters, these also with characteristic Altmer skin tones, including one with one of those "white people" skin tones. This obsession with interpreting elves as having some variation of metalic skin tones reads more as you trying to impose self-created categories than anything, especially considering the evidence I've provided against it for both Chimer and Ayleids now.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

And I keep saying, there are several bits of lore showing the -intent- behind the fluff, that points strongly towards a "the developers wanted it to be that way", thus the belief is valid as it follows the creators intent.
And there are also a lot of logical connections that could support the whole idea. No solid mention in the in-world lore, true, but... indications. Combine those with the game descriptions and it paints a poretty solid pictore for different racial traits.
...
...but... is often rather vague abouzt their exact nature, as that nature has changed over various games.

The only "bits of lore" you've presented are the character creation descriptions, which have already been shown to be characteristically inconsistent at best and contradictory at worst. You've gotten to the point where you're picking and choosing which descriptions are the gospel truth, and have even said that the game mechanic portions of the descriptions aren't important despite the text descriptions being directly used to inform those very game mechanic decisions. Really your position is just ludicrous at this point. It seems to be "this tiny handful of carefully-selected sentences is the true intent of the game designers, but not anything else the game designers came up with, including other things from the section I just said matters".

TheShadowScout wrote: »

And that is where my argument comes from, I say the differet "racial traits" are part of the elder scrolls flavor and thus should be preferved, working with the -how- of their depiction. Make them mean less, so they don't force people into one build, then maybe add more options for people to diversify their characters...

The different traits are the real flavor of the game, except when they're absent or contradictory? I'm pretty sure the real flavor of the game is the monumental worldbuilding task they've taken on over the years. The races are important for the deep and distinct cultures they bring to the world of Tamriel, not for the alleged affinities they have which only a tiny percent of their population engages with, especially when every other culture also engages in that activity.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

As for your core argument, it just goes back to your idea only being supported in one place (and with contradictions at that) while mine is supported through the rest of the lore.

Not at all supported, you mean?
Since the lore does NOT show any evidence of absence of racial differences.
While it -does- mention "racial traits" so I suppose there must be some... and even moreso, your much vaunted "magical change theory" would support the existance of racial traits even more strongly then anything else... because once you bring magic into it, such things are easily possible yes?

It's pretty sad that you have to strawman this late in the conversation. My argument isn't that there's a complete absense of racial differences. There are obvious aggregate cosmetic differences between the races. My argument is that racials do not make sense and are not supported by the stories and NPCs portrayed in the games. You've had every opportunity to provide counterexamples or defeat my arguments with logical inference built on the source material and you've failed at every turn. If your arguments can't stand on their own and you find yourself needing to resort to fallacious tactics, then form better arguments.

And no, as I said above, magic fiat only supports racials if there is actual mention of it happening. This has not been observed. It's also the weakest argument against my claim, not the strongest. Magic specifically does not make sense. It goes against the laws of nature. Absolutely anything could or could not happen based on the whims of magic BS. To be using magic fiat as the last refuge of your position is the ultimate admission that the topic at hand does not make any logical sense and could not arise by any other means except through Deus Ex. It is likewise for that reason that direct reference becomes so important when you claim something happened by magic. If you can't infer cause and effect then you very strictly speaking don't have evidence for your claim. You might as well claim something completely outlandish, like Argonians being bipedal turtles with no shells. There's no support for this in the lore, it was never mentioned exclicitly, but it could be true because magic. I am hoping you can at least see why that makes for a terrible argument.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Or show that even in a place where sword-swinging jocks rule the culture (and if you read the lore as much as I assume, you must admit that nords, orcs and redguards definitely lean towards that one) those who seek out the mysteries of magic can reach quite some heights, if with a bit more effort (as it was in days of elder scrolls past).

It's not all about swords and sorcery. The majority of a culture isn't going to be either of those combined, let alone individually. Most of the people are going to be merchants or crafters or farmers or academics or day-laborers or other completely mundane, society-building professionals. This obsession with the combat side of things just shows how much your understanding of worldbuilding is influenced by gameplay mechanics. So no, the idea would not be to highlight the importance of the struggle between jock and nerd, the idea is to make a complex and believable society.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Wrong.
Because if you change the way they are assigned, the "racial passives" go away, because the "racial" way to get them IS that part. Its like saying... "hey, lets "adjust" the human rights and make them citizen rights... you are not loosing your rights... they are just adjusted..." but in the end, it simply would not be the same, and definitely not an improvement...

They changed the way that you get a fast horse versus a carry capacity horse versus a high stam horse. You no longer have to pick and choose which horse to take out from the stable for your purposes, as all of your mounts can serve any role. That is a 100% analog to changing how the stat boosts we currently know as racials are acquired, but I don't see you complaining about ruining the flavor of horses. So either change your logic for what you consider an acceptable alteration to game systems, or come out as anti-riding training.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Is Harry Potter, a full-blooded wizard, a hero in spite of his disadvantaged upbringing? Sure, but very clearly it's not because he belongs to an unexpected race that isn't usually good at wizarding.

No, but because of his completely and totally non-wizarding upbringing, perhaps?

Recremen wrote: »

Were Leia, Like, and Han heroes because they faced overwhelming odds against a powerful and ruthless enemy? Sure, but not because they were Space Humans.

Especially since Chewie and the droids definitely were not space humans.
(Although it is a bit vexing how many space humans fill the "hero" slots in the star wars universe, not to mention the ratio of caucasian brunettes in that role...)

Recremen wrote: »

Race has nothing to do with their stories, and it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the vast majority of characters in TES lorebooks.

I was not talking about race, I was talking about underdogs winning the day making for more memorable stories.
It only becomes about race when one race dominates a certain field.
Then the underdog that wins gets remembered more then all the champions that won before them, since favorites that take the win are a dime a dozend throughout history, but underdogs that win, those are -special- by that very fact, and thus make for a much better story.

Your obsession with how race may or may not factor into everything is borderline pathological at this point, and it remains as internally inconsistent as ever. In both of your examples they had much more unexpected options that, by your reasoning, would have made the stories more memorable due to the overwhelming underdoggedness of the main characters. They could have gone with a muggle killing Voldemort and they could have gone with a Jawa killing Emperor Palpatine. But they didn't. Why not? Didn't they want their stories to be memorable?? Well it turns out that both series had more than enough drama to be memorable without having to add a race layer to it. You are reaching so hard and so desperately to pigeonhole the entire elder scrolls lore archive into a race dynamic and it's blinding you to basic concepts related to telling a good story.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

There are stories of intrigue, stories of comedy, stories of romance, of horror, and many more.

...and just how many of those go with the most likely narative? How many storied of intrigue have the most suspiscious character be the actual culprit? How many stotries of comedy have the expected things happen all the time? How many stories of romance have the most likely suitor take the bride? How many stories of horror only include expected narratives?
Where would be the fun of that, a story without complication? Without some depicted struggle? Without some surprise?
And thus... when the story is about a persons achievements, it makes for a much better story to have an unlikely one achieve something.

At this point your refusal to actually engage with the lore to back up this absurd claim is downright comical. Do you even read the lorebooks? What context clues are you using to support the idea that there's some hidden race-related agenda for the lorebook author? Books like A Game At DInner aren't interesting because Dunmer lack a racial bonus to poisoning people, it's interesting because it demonstrates Helseth's ruthlessness, the very real degree to which he has to worry about spies, and the quiet horror of the situation that he put everyone in. Books like Purloined Shadows aren't interesting because the thieves lack a Khajiit's alleged prowess with thievery, it's interesting because it's a gripping tale of overambition and comeuppance. Even books where race does play a role, the role it plays has nothing to do with these alleged differences in racial prowess. Going back to a book I've already mentioned, the race issues in Last Scabbard of Akrash has to do with the Khajiit and Dunmer lover couple and the dynamics of slavery and ownership. We don't expect a Dunmer to have a secret Khajiit lover and we don't expect a slave to have the ability to assassinate so many Dunmer nobles. That certainly makes things "unexpected" but it has nothing to do with this wild race-importance conjecture of yours.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

The in-game depictions in lorebooks and NPCs paint an extremely complex picture of the races, where the alleged proclivities and advantages of the race fall away to reveal complex characters with a great many different skillsets

...which in no way contradicts any racial traits.

Recremen wrote: »

In particular, we have ample depictions and descriptions of every race having robust cultural traditions around all the big three classic TES categories : Combat, Magic, and Stealth. Trying to essentialize the culture of any of the races inevitably cuts out huge amounts of canonical nuance.

...which still in no way contradicts any racial traits.

One more issue I have with the arguments, they always, always seem to equalize "racial trait" with "logically follows all of that race must be this", then try to turn that faulty argument around to say "since not all of the race are this, logically there must be no racial predisposition towards this"
Wrong.
Just because a race in general has some predisposition towards something does not mean everyone will be that thing. Just because people are different things does not mean a race in general may not have different physical charactersisitcs then some other race that make some things easier for them.
Absence of evidence is -still- not evidence of absence.
And in light of the game developers decision to -want- racial differences, well... your argument kinda seems flimsy as solid proof is concerned (as personal opinion its to be accepted tho)

Since you didn't quote anything from the entire summary point about the evolution argument, I'll assume that you've fully conceded that part of the argument. If not, please feel free to explain how these alleged racial differences could have surfaced in so short a time, with magnitudes far exceeding anything in nature, and with a complete absence of the relevant selective pressures which would drive such changes.

For the "it does not make sense lore-wise" portion, we may extend from the uncontested evolution argument. In particular, if there is no evolutionary cause for these traits, then the only other explanation is some kind of magical fiat. Magical fiat specifically is not a logical argument, it is the concession that nothing except a nonsense Deus Ex could explain the situation. As such, you very much need an explicit mention of that magical thing happening for the explanation to be convincing, otherwise you can say literally anything happened and explain with "because magic".

Thus, absence of evidence is, in fact, the best evidence of absence that we can ever hope for. No amount of "but this COULD be the case" helps us find the truth because it can be equally countered with "but it could also NOT be the case". We need direct sources for outlandish claims, and when we lack those we should not insist that it's true anyways just because we feel it to be true. Without such direct sources we don't have good arguments, we have glorified headcanons.

And as I said above and before, your insistence that the developers wanted racial difference is only backed up by character creation gameplay mechanics, and inconsistently at that. The stories, quests, and NPCs do not paint a picture where such things exist. We cannot build backwards from the story and arrive at the conclusion that racial passives were intended to exist. Every culture has farmers, warriors, mages, thieves, diplomats, and every other profession under the sun. There are always equivalent cultural institutions, like the Knights of the Flame and the Ansei and the Khajiiti martial arts. How are we to use any of these venerable groups of warriors as evidence that their specific host race is the true masters of martial wisdom? We cannot possibly do so. We can arbitrarily impose a hierarchy on them by using the gameplay racials (and again, we can only do so inconsistently), but that's not arriving at your conclusion logically, that's just imposing a conclusion on data points which fundamentally do not support it.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

First, you have not given ANY evidence for your hypothesis. At best, inconclusive indications. And if you stopped calling those "evidence" and making absolute statements but instead went with something more fitting like "opinion" or "hypothesis" or "suggestions" I would argue a Lot less with you...

Honey don't you even dare say that I haven't provided evidence. Do you just not know what words mean? I have spent hours collating references from a variety of source material, including real-life science concepts, a wide array of lorebooks, video and screenshot evidence using in-game characters, etc. I have consistently and in good faith engaged with every argument and supposed contradiction. And why would I care how much you argue with me? My positions can stand up to scrutiny. Attempts to disprove or counter my arguments are welcome as they have consistently shown the soundness of my stance.

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Second, the racial differences ARE a part of the elder scrolls flavor. Replacing them would be changing that flavor, and thus a bad move.

Nah, they've been inconsistent and contradictory. The real elder scrolls flavor is the complexity of the world, the depth of the cultures in it, and the way that despite how alien the world can get, it is still full of very relatable experiences. Replacing racials would be a fantastic move that finally makes the freedom of gameplay consistent with the fictional world the games are based on.

dodgehopper_ESO wrote: »

@Recremen : I didn't want to try to quote the section (its a huge bit of text there) but you spoke about Bretons and Manmer being questionable. My Breton's pointy stubby ears suggest to me that this is precisely the intention of the lorekeepers at Bethesda. I'll be honest I don't understand your animus with what @TheShadowScout is saying. He actually agrees with you that Race choice should not effect whether you can be a Great tank, healer, dps, etc. His point is that some level of flavor is valuable and meaningful and to this point I agree. I don't think we need to write Epics on the subject matter. In all honesty I think you're talking past him and failing to see the greater point he is making. It is CLEAR that something is going on with Nords in a mystical way regarding Ice/Snow/Kynareth/Shor. The Nords have a proclivity toward a divine ability (Shouting) and a supernatural resiliency toward the cold, and have come from some frigid plane of existence known as Atmora which may or may not actually be a continent. Dunmer are hugely resistant to flame and this is some mystical proclivity. I personally think you are all getting a bit too genetic in your assessments. There are mystical/spiritual things going on here CLEARLY that are elements of the theme. This is why I believe @TheShadowScout and others (Such as myself) have a problem with wanting to completely undo these racial traits. We all recognize that the series itself has something more going on with it. The Shehai is a Yokudan/Redguard thing. It would be strange if the Shehai appeared outside of the Yokudan people unless this person somehow had a Redguard soul (which I suppose is not completely impossible in the series). It is also inherent to the Argonians for instance that they breathe water and are highly resilient to disease and toxin.

The point I'm making here is that the racial backstory in ESO does matter. There is something much more different between Elder Scrolls than the real life differences between a Norwegian and a Frenchman, or a Frenchman and an Algerian, or an Algerian or a Nigerian, or a Nigerian or a Chinese person, or a Chinese person vs a Navajo. You get my point. This is a magical fantasy world with elves and lizard people, Vampires and Lamias, Sloads and Dragons. Fundamentally, we all agree that an epic Khajiit hero should be able to be a master wizard if he wants to be. Enchantments should even allow that Khajiit to breathe water like an argonian and handle the toxins of Murkmire. The problem is in how it was balanced in this game (which is to say it wasn't). Many of us don't mind the racial differences. A Khajiit has a tail, claws, fangs. It is NOT the same as a Nord, which is why even though a Nord is much more physically imposing than a Khajiit, the Khajiit has an advantage in hand to hand combat. Its just mageobiology, or whatever you want to call it. Every race has this stuff in the Elder Scrolls series. Bosmer have the wild hunt. Dwemer had their 'Deep Tonal Architect Elf' thing. Denying that is to deny the lore itself. Simultaneously, I think we can all agree that there are people who break the innate median norms of their race in Elder Scrolls. Sotha Sil is a prime example of this being a psijic who managed to master tonal architecture. Would this be normal Dunmer behavior? Not in the slightest. This isn't even normal mortal behavior. Sotha Sil is an outlier.

This is @TheShadowScout's point and you seem to keep talking past it. Simultaneously, @Recremen, You keep wanting to point out that everyone is an equal and balance would be good. I don't know about everyone being equal in capacity (not even in real life, but I would agree that everyone in real life is equal in value) but I do believe that every character should be able to master whatever field is available in game. This is what you want and I agree with it. Interestingly enough so does @TheShadowScout so again I'm wondering why is this dance around the subject so voluminous. What is actually being said here? I'm getting a headache reading it and I'm not sure much is being accomplished from a productive perspective other than you have made it abundantly clear you dislike his point by point analysis.

As an aside: Altmer are Banana yellow. Never before in an Elder Scrolls series have I seen an Altmer anything but banana yellow. This influx of more human skin colored Altmer makes me think these are more Ayleid than Altmer, which also makes me think that the game developers are suggesting the Ayleid interbreeding gave them human futures by the way. We can't only use Elder Scrolls Online as the measuring stick by what the series is. On this matter I vehemently agree with @TheShadowScout .

@dodgehopper_ESO

The problem I have isn't about whether or not Bretons can have pointy ears or whether or not they interbred with Direnni (those are both well-established fact), the problem I have is that neither of those things point to races evolving over time (in point of fact it is direct evidence against it), and that fact speaks to my greater argument that racials abilities do not make sense logically nor in the lore. The "manmeri" thing was just a tangent, and a tiny facet of the larger argument. I actually care less about the gameplay concerns related to racials (since they're not consistent or immutable anyway) and more about whether or not they even make sense in-universe. Part of assessing that internal consistency or inconsistency is going to involve reasoning with from the perspective of real-life science, and part of it is going to be looking for game-world sources that corroborate or explain the racial abilities.

For example, you claim that there is clearly something mystical going on with the Nords regarding ice/snow/Kynareth/Shor. In actuality, our sources point only to a cultural connection. Now that culture matters and can point to aggregate differences, but not race-wide ones. For instance, if you pick a Nord and a Khajiit completely at random, your Nord is more likely to live in a colder region of Tamriel and your Khajiit is more likely to live in a warmer one. On an individual level, then, they're more likely to personally be acclimated to those respective environs. This does not appear to be true for all Nords and Khajiit, however. If we're talking about racial advantages and selective pressure for some particular attribute, then both of those races' biggest advantage is their ability to adapt. Not adapt over many generations, but adapt on an individual level to the unique environmental stresses they find themselves in. That's kind of the most important thing for any civilization-building species. This is stuff I already went over several times in the course of the other argument, and I'm bound to repeat myself quite a bit here.

Now if there were in fact some mystical race-wide connection to be made, we ought to be able to see it brought up with at least some small frequency in the lore. Heck you'd expect it to come up a little bit more than usual considering how racist many people are in the elder scrolls universe. Instead, we don't see that at all. We do see a lot of jabs at inferior cultures or backwards traditions, but we don't see Altmer, Redguards, Bosmer, and the rest talking about their amazing disease resistance even though that has, at one point or another, been one of their racial passives. In fact, only Argonians are resistant to disease in ESO. Speaking of Argonians, we find some great counterpoints to the idea that they're resistant (or in some previous games, immune) to poison. In Murkmire there are Argonians worrying about dying from ingesting poisonous plants, and one Argonian who is getting drunk off of a simple beer. Now some have argued that these counterpoints don't matter, because the whole race doesn't need to have the magic power in order for it to be considered a racial trait. That doesn't really sound like a mystical racial connection to some ability, though, that sounds like an unpredictable cop-out.

The "dance around the subject" is because the facts presented simply don't add up from a lore perspective. If we take the combination in NPCs, quests, and lorebooks throughout the games and try to reverse-engineer racial abilities we would never get anywhere with it. The TES races have too much in-group diversity to justify that kind of pigeonholing, and there is too much overlap among cultural institutions to figure out who the real paragons of a specific thing are supposed to be. For every College of Sapiarchs you have an Imperial Battlespire. For every Redguard Sword School you have a Khajiiti martial arts temple. And within each of those cultures, the number of people actually participating in that activity is ultimately a minority. Most people are going to be commoners, merchants, tradesfolk, and other kinds of people responsible for the constructive work of society. Nobody is jumping at the idea of giving Nords a racial bonus to basketweaving, or Argonians a bonus to growing potatoes, but those actually make more sense for racial traits than some kind of bonus to health regen or whatever. Ultimately, racial abilities are a completely unsupported concept driven by a top-down design and unexamined gaming traditions, and they've totally poisoned peoples' ability to take an honest look at the lore.