The writing for the upcoming story content - some thoughts on the latest news article

spartaxoxo · May 17

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were former lovers, that would make Mannimarco's ultimate possession of Galerian's corpse far worse.

Definitely. But it would fit his obsession and his conviction that he's above all laws.

And it would really make him an evil character, not just one of these cardboard characters you kill at the end of every chapter just for the next one to arrive a year later.

Mannimarco's already a very evil character that's more fleshed out than a lot of the villains in ESO. ESO's contribution being giving him a former lover who's corpse he decides to keep wouldn't be out of character for what's already established but would definitely escalate what is already pretty awful.

It would explain why's so obsessed with him though, I'll give you that. I had gotten the impression it's because Vanus usually came out on top in their struggles but former lover would also explain his obsession. Makes him way creepier, though not necessarily deeper imo.

metheglyn · May 17

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were former lovers, that would make Mannimarco's ultimate possession of Galerian's corpse far worse.

Definitely. But it would fit his obsession and his conviction that he's above all laws.

And it would really make him an evil character, not just one of these cardboard characters you kill at the end of every chapter just for the next one to arrive a year later.

Mannimarco's already a very evil character that's more fleshed out than a lot of the villains in ESO. ESO's contribution being giving him a former lover who's corpse he decides to keep wouldn't be out of character for what's already established but would definitely escalate what is already pretty awful.

It would explain why's so obsessed with him though, I'll give you that. I had gotten the impression it's because Vanus usually came out on top in their struggles but former lover would also explain his obsession. Makes him way creepier, though not necessarily deeper imo.

Might not make him deeper, but I think it adds complexity to the story.

Obsessed is a good way to describe Mannimarco's ultimate view of Galerion, and I think it's a richer story if it's based on more than just academic achievements or opposing viewpoints on necromancy.

Syldras · May 17

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Mannimarco's already a very evil character that's more fleshed out than a lot of the villains in ESO. ESO's contribution being giving him a former lover who's corpse he decides to keep wouldn't be out of character for what's already established but would definitely escalate what is already pretty awful.
It would explain why's so obsessed with him though, I'll give you that. I had gotten the impression it's because Vanus usually came out on top in their struggles but former lover would also explain his obsession. Makes him way creepier, though not necessarily deeper imo.

He's evil already now and I also agree his characterization and background lore is much more detailed and better written than that of most antagonists. But honestly, in Tamriel being a "people-sacrificing cultist mage and/or necromancer wanting to end/change/rule the world" isn't that much of a rare concept. Giving him another very personal motivation for what he's doing, even if it's absolutely creepy, would give it all a new facet.

I personally wouldn't mind it. I think an evil character can be portrayed as really, really bad, and especially for a character who seems to be obsessed, I'd like to see how that obsession knows no boundaries.

And it's not all just about the end of the whole story. What I'd also care for is the tragedy of their relationship, or of its end, and the narration would certainly be more powerful if we had a glimpse at their time before Mannimarco became interested in necromancy.

spartaxoxo · May 17

metheglyn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were former lovers, that would make Mannimarco's ultimate possession of Galerian's corpse far worse.

Definitely. But it would fit his obsession and his conviction that he's above all laws.

And it would really make him an evil character, not just one of these cardboard characters you kill at the end of every chapter just for the next one to arrive a year later.

Mannimarco's already a very evil character that's more fleshed out than a lot of the villains in ESO. ESO's contribution being giving him a former lover who's corpse he decides to keep wouldn't be out of character for what's already established but would definitely escalate what is already pretty awful.

It would explain why's so obsessed with him though, I'll give you that. I had gotten the impression it's because Vanus usually came out on top in their struggles but former lover would also explain his obsession. Makes him way creepier, though not necessarily deeper imo.

Might not make him deeper, but I think it adds complexity to the story.

Obsessed is a good way to describe Mannimarco's ultimate view of Galerion, and I think it's a richer story if it's based on more than just academic achievements or opposing viewpoints on necromancy.

I always viewed it as part of Mannimarco's unchecked narcissism and that Mannimarco's own worst enemy is actually himself and he's just latched onto Vanus as the blame.

Mannimarco has a literal god complex. But, he's not the god he thinks of himself. Vanus is not the problem. Mannimarco's own attitude is the problem. But he's going to keep blaming everyone else for his failure and keep trying to become a god anyway. Vanus seems an easy target for the blame due to repeatedly being involved in stopping him.

I don't think it makes it any deeper to add that he's obsessed with Vanus because they used to be in love to that..

Although, I suppose it does add complexity to Vanus. Since, right now, despite his haughty attitude, he's actually a really good guy.

SpaceElf · May 17

spartaxoxo wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were former lovers, that would make Mannimarco's ultimate possession of Galerian's corpse far worse.

Definitely. But it would fit his obsession and his conviction that he's above all laws.

And it would really make him an evil character, not just one of these cardboard characters you kill at the end of every chapter just for the next one to arrive a year later.

Mannimarco's already a very evil character that's more fleshed out than a lot of the villains in ESO. ESO's contribution being giving him a former lover who's corpse he decides to keep wouldn't be out of character for what's already established but would definitely escalate what is already pretty awful.

It would explain why's so obsessed with him though, I'll give you that. I had gotten the impression it's because Vanus usually came out on top in their struggles but former lover would also explain his obsession. Makes him way creepier, though not necessarily deeper imo.

Might not make him deeper, but I think it adds complexity to the story.

Obsessed is a good way to describe Mannimarco's ultimate view of Galerion, and I think it's a richer story if it's based on more than just academic achievements or opposing viewpoints on necromancy.

I always viewed it as part of Mannimarco's unchecked narcissism and that Mannimarco's own worst enemy is actually himself and he's just latched onto Vanus as the blame.

Mannimarco has a literal god complex. But, he's not the god he thinks of himself. Vanus is not the problem. Mannimarco's own attitude is the problem. But he's going to keep blaming everyone else for his failure and keep trying to become a god anyway. Vanus seems an easy target for the blame due to repeatedly being involved in stopping him.

I don't think it makes it any deeper to add that he's obsessed with Vanus because they used to be in love to that..

Although, I suppose it does add complexity to Vanus. Since, right now, despite his haughty attitude, he's actually a really good guy.

I get the impression that his general 'loudness' is a result of just not being heard in his past. He wasn't acknowledged as a real person as a child, his warnings to the Psjjjics were downplayed, his warnings to the Big Three rulers as to the real threat were met with lukewarm wavering, then hostility after asking for help. Crooning about how great he is makes him sound very haughty, but I think it's a mechanism to get people to take what he's saying seriously before it's too late.

I think Mannimarco is outraged someone like Vanus, who was raised in comparative disadvantage, DOESN'T want to use his immense power in the same fashion as the former.

metheglyn · May 17

spartaxoxo wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were former lovers, that would make Mannimarco's ultimate possession of Galerian's corpse far worse.

Definitely. But it would fit his obsession and his conviction that he's above all laws.

And it would really make him an evil character, not just one of these cardboard characters you kill at the end of every chapter just for the next one to arrive a year later.

Mannimarco's already a very evil character that's more fleshed out than a lot of the villains in ESO. ESO's contribution being giving him a former lover who's corpse he decides to keep wouldn't be out of character for what's already established but would definitely escalate what is already pretty awful.

It would explain why's so obsessed with him though, I'll give you that. I had gotten the impression it's because Vanus usually came out on top in their struggles but former lover would also explain his obsession. Makes him way creepier, though not necessarily deeper imo.

Might not make him deeper, but I think it adds complexity to the story.

Obsessed is a good way to describe Mannimarco's ultimate view of Galerion, and I think it's a richer story if it's based on more than just academic achievements or opposing viewpoints on necromancy.

I always viewed it as part of Mannimarco's unchecked narcissism and that Mannimarco's own worst enemy is actually himself and he's just latched onto Vanus as the blame.

Mannimarco has a literal god complex. But, he's not the god he thinks of himself. Vanus is not the problem. Mannimarco's own attitude is the problem. But he's going to keep blaming everyone else for his failure and keep trying to become a god anyway. Vanus seems an easy target for the blame due to repeatedly being involved in stopping him.

I don't think it makes it any deeper to add that he's obsessed with Vanus because they used to be in love to that..

Although, I suppose it does add complexity to Vanus. Since, right now, despite his haughty attitude, he's actually a really good guy.

I agree with your assessment of Mannimarco in essence, and I don't think his relationship with Galerion needs the addition of them being former lovers, but I do think it would add complexity to it if they had been. Whatever Mannimarco is now, if he and Galerion had a closer/more personal relationship in the past, it shows that Mannimarco at one point had the capacity, to some degree, to think of someone other than himself.

To me, to know he potentially once cared about at least one other person makes his later utter self-interest more interesting than if he has just always been that way.

Syldras · May 17

SpaceElf wrote: »

I think Mannimarco is outraged someone like Vanus, who was raised in comparative disadvantage, DOESN'T want to use his immense power in the same fashion as the former.

I'm not sure whether he really thinks about their different backgrounds, but I'll have to check their dialogues on Artaeum again (will do that later, I am a bit busy right now); in any way he does not understand (from what I remember) how someone can reject power. He showed Galerion what he had achieved, seemed proud of it, and expected him to be amazed - but he was not.

metheglyn wrote: »

I agree with your assessment of Mannimarco in essence, and I don't think his relationship with Galerion needs the addition of them being former lovers, but I do think it would add complexity to it if they had been. Whatever Mannimarco is now, if he and Galerion had a closer/more personal relationship in the past, it shows that Mannimarco at one point had the capacity, to some degree, to think of someone other than himself.
To me, to know he potentially once cared about at least one other person makes his later utter self-interest more interesting than if he has just always been that way.

Exactly that. It's much more dramatic if someone gets morally corrupted instead of someone who had always been "just evil". The fall is the dramatic element (I think here was even something in ancient Greek drama theory about that, but I can't check right now). And it leads to the questions: Why and how? Which is, again, more complex than to just say someone was just born evil. If that is even possible.

SpaceElf · May 17

Syldras wrote: »

SpaceElf wrote: »

I think Mannimarco is outraged someone like Vanus, who was raised in comparative disadvantage, DOESN'T want to use his immense power in the same fashion as the former.

I'm not sure whether he really thinks about their different backgrounds, but I'll have to check their dialogues on Artaeum again (will do that later, I am a bit busy right now); in any way he does not understand (from what I remember) how someone can reject power. He showed Galerion what he had achieved, seemed proud of it, and expected him to be amazed - but he was not.

Yes, read strictly to in game dialogue, yes you are correct. I was speculating a bit there, but I can genuinely see Vanus being influenced by his past to do good with his power.

To be honest, it looked like he was more horrified by what Mannimarco did to their classmates than the necromancy specifically. It makes sense considering his aforementioned past, which might be partly why Mannimarco in turn didn't see the big deal. Either way, it turned out the same.

SpaceElf · May 17

metheglyn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If they were former lovers, that would make Mannimarco's ultimate possession of Galerian's corpse far worse.

Definitely. But it would fit his obsession and his conviction that he's above all laws.

And it would really make him an evil character, not just one of these cardboard characters you kill at the end of every chapter just for the next one to arrive a year later.

Mannimarco's already a very evil character that's more fleshed out than a lot of the villains in ESO. ESO's contribution being giving him a former lover who's corpse he decides to keep wouldn't be out of character for what's already established but would definitely escalate what is already pretty awful.

It would explain why's so obsessed with him though, I'll give you that. I had gotten the impression it's because Vanus usually came out on top in their struggles but former lover would also explain his obsession. Makes him way creepier, though not necessarily deeper imo.

Might not make him deeper, but I think it adds complexity to the story.

Obsessed is a good way to describe Mannimarco's ultimate view of Galerion, and I think it's a richer story if it's based on more than just academic achievements or opposing viewpoints on necromancy.

I always viewed it as part of Mannimarco's unchecked narcissism and that Mannimarco's own worst enemy is actually himself and he's just latched onto Vanus as the blame.

Mannimarco has a literal god complex. But, he's not the god he thinks of himself. Vanus is not the problem. Mannimarco's own attitude is the problem. But he's going to keep blaming everyone else for his failure and keep trying to become a god anyway. Vanus seems an easy target for the blame due to repeatedly being involved in stopping him.

I don't think it makes it any deeper to add that he's obsessed with Vanus because they used to be in love to that..

Although, I suppose it does add complexity to Vanus. Since, right now, despite his haughty attitude, he's actually a really good guy.

I agree with your assessment of Mannimarco in essence, and I don't think his relationship with Galerion needs the addition of them being former lovers, but I do think it would add complexity to it if they had been. Whatever Mannimarco is now, if he and Galerion had a closer/more personal relationship in the past, it shows that Mannimarco at one point had the capacity, to some degree, to think of someone other than himself.

To me, to know he potentially once cared about at least one other person makes his later utter self-interest more interesting than if he has just always been that way.

That is a super good point.

Taking that into consideration, it makes certain parts of the latest news article seem more feasible narratively.

TaSheen · May 17

Syldras wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

Perhaps. I'm weighing that reason against his sense of self; that is, would he really care if anyone knew, or see them as much of a threat? I mean, the vestige may have beaten him once, but maybe from his perspective that was just luck and so forth.

I think he'd probably be someone who enjoyed secretly plotting his revenge and then to strike without warning.

That would actually be a fun concept for once: You're not trying to hunt down the evil antigonist, he comes for you. Of course I doubt that we'll see that happen.

metheglyn wrote: »

On another note, since you, I, and @JemadarofCaerSalis all think there was more to Mannimarco and Galerion's relationship than just friendship, can we declare it canon? Three is enough of a majority for that, right?

I know another 2 people who agree, so we're already 5. At least.

Add me to that too!

Carcamongus · May 18

I like villains who aren't pure evil from head to toe. That makes it too easy for me to want to defeat them. The real fun is with antagonists with whom I might even agree in substance, if not form. I particularly liked Torvesard: I knew we were on opposite sides, but I could understand the reasons for his actions. This was one character I really didn't want to fight.

Let's hop universes and go to a galaxy far, far away. The Empire is evil and in the lore it's stated it exists for the sole purpose of serving the Emperor's designs. However, the new Thrawn books show an Empire that's still evil, but more reasonable. Even Darth Vader appears more likeable! This is a much more interesting Empire and we become conflicted when we root for those who are supposed to be the bad guys. I do so wish Disney won't tarnish Thrawn's reputation with wantom cruelty in Ahsoka's second season.

Back to Nirn, what I really want to see is a villain I'd like to join or, at least, whose demise would leave me regretful. There was a golden opportunity for such a baddie in High Isle, but instead the Ascendant Order was just another band of thugs and their leader a power-hungry lunatic.

Anyway, sure, I'll go to the new island to bash some worms. But they're not the sort of enemy that I find exciting.

Syldras · May 18

So I have not managed to look at drama theory now (I suspect what I'm searching for is in Aristotle's Poetics; I know it was mostly about the depiction of heroes, but I know it also had general parts on how to create tragedy in a plot, including what Schopenhauer called Fallhöhe, literally "height of fall", although I'm honestly not sure what the English term for that is, also, I last read it in the early 2000's, back in school, so...; and the other two central points to rouse emotions in the reader/viewer: fear and pity - which would match, in our discussion, Mannimarco's deeds and Galerion's suffering)... Yes, I know I'm overcomplicating things again

But: I have looked at the dialogue on Artaeum (because that's faster and easier and I just have to open UESP

).

Vanus Galerion: "Just look at this place. How in Syrabane's name did you get the Ritemaster to unlock it for you?"
Mannimarco: "He rightly acknowledged our superior skill. It's only natural that he'd let us work here."
Vanus Galerion: "Well, it's quite a privilege."
Mannimarco: "Privilege? It's our right, Vanus. You mustn't be so humble all the time."
Vanus Galerion: "Oh, not this again …. Come, let's explore further!"

It's obvious that the central difference in mindset is that Mannimarco feels entitled to things because of his talent. But it also shows that he does not think of himself as a leader or so, but that he considers Galerion as just as talented as himself, and he wants him to grasp for what they (from his point of view) both deserve too. He wants to have him by his side, as an equal (and I think he truly had strong feelings for him, whether it be friendship or love, but failed to be empathic enough to think of Galerion's perspective - a bit like some people who want "the best" for their kid or their friend and don't see what the other person actually wants, which is flawed, but it doesn't mean they don't love them).

And honestly, I can fully see that something like this is what Mannimarco has in mind - now in a perverted, self-deluding way - when he finally steals Galerion's corpse. He's totally obsessed by this idea and wants it fulfilled.

Vanus Galerion: "What have you done? This is just … repugnant."
Mannimarco: "Oh, Vanus, I would have thought you less judgmental. It's just a bit of puppetry. Nothing but arcane lift and spirit-handling."
Vanus Galerion: "That was a living thing, Mannimarco. You're edging close to a dangerous line. Too close."
Mannimarco: "You sound like the Ritemaster. The only lines are those you draw in your mind."
Vanus Galerion: "I'm not going to …. Please, just find a new avenue of research. All right?"

Galerion's torn between reporting the incident (because he knows it might not end well) and not wanting to betray his friend. Probably he's also afraid for what would happen to Mannimarco then.

And that's the tragedy: No matter how he decides, the outcome will be horrible. There might be some catastrophe if he lets Mannimarco continue his experiments, or if he reports him, he will lose his friend, maybe Mannimarco would even be killed, and that would leave him feeling guilt, too. Which is basically a textbook example for how to write a tragic situation: The "good one" can't do right, no matter how he chooses, it won't end well. And he's been thrown into that situation not by his own fault, but by circumstances he had no influence on.

metheglyn · May 18

Syldras wrote: »

So I have not managed to look at drama theory now (I suspect what I'm searching for is in Aristotle's Poetics; I know it was mostly about the depiction of heroes, but I know it also had general parts on how to create tragedy in a plot, including what Schopenhauer called Fallhöhe, literally "height of fall", although I'm honestly not sure what the English term for that is, also, I last read it in the early 2000's, back in school, so...; and the other two central points to rouse emotions in the reader/viewer: fear and pity - which would match, in our discussion, Mannimarco's deeds and Galerion's suffering)... Yes, I know I'm overcomplicating things again

I think the English term might be "fall from grace," though I'm not positive, as that also has some religious tones to it (a reference to Lucifer's fall, I believe). But in general I think it refers to a point of no return, a point the person "falling" doesn't realize until it's too late (if indeed they realize it at all, or even care in the end).

Syldras wrote: »

But: I have looked at the dialogue on Artaeum (because that's faster and easier and I just have to open UESP ).

Vanus Galerion: "Just look at this place. How in Syrabane's name did you get the Ritemaster to unlock it for you?"
Mannimarco: "He rightly acknowledged our superior skill. It's only natural that he'd let us work here."
Vanus Galerion: "Well, it's quite a privilege."
Mannimarco: "Privilege? It's our right, Vanus. You mustn't be so humble all the time."
Vanus Galerion: "Oh, not this again …. Come, let's explore further!"

It's obvious that the central difference in mindset is that Mannimarco feels entitled to things because of his talent. But it also shows that he does not think of himself as a leader or so, but that he considers Galerion as just as talented as himself, and he wants him to grasp for what they (from his point of view) both deserve too. He wants to have him by his side, as an equal (and I think he truly had strong feelings for him, whether it be friendship or love, but failed to be empathic enough to think of Galerion's perspective - a bit like some people who want "the best" for their kid or their friend and don't see what the other person actually wants, which is flawed, but it doesn't mean they don't love them).

And honestly, I can fully see that something like this is what Mannimarco has in mind - now in a perverted, self-deluding way - when he finally steals Galerion's corpse. He's totally obsessed by this idea and wants it fulfilled.

Vanus Galerion: "What have you done? This is just … repugnant."
Mannimarco: "Oh, Vanus, I would have thought you less judgmental. It's just a bit of puppetry. Nothing but arcane lift and spirit-handling."
Vanus Galerion: "That was a living thing, Mannimarco. You're edging close to a dangerous line. Too close."
Mannimarco: "You sound like the Ritemaster. The only lines are those you draw in your mind."
Vanus Galerion: "I'm not going to …. Please, just find a new avenue of research. All right?"

Galerion's torn between reporting the incident (because he knows it might not end well) and not wanting to betray his friend. Probably he's also afraid for what would happen to Mannimarco then.

And that's the tragedy: No matter how he decides, the outcome will be horrible. There might be some catastrophe if he lets Mannimarco continue his experiments, or if he reports him, he will lose his friend, maybe Mannimarco would even be killed, and that would leave him feeling guilt, too. Which is basically a textbook example for how to write a tragic situation: The "good one" can't do right, no matter how he chooses, it won't end well. And he's been thrown into that situation not by his own fault, but by circumstances he had no influence on.

I like (and agree with) your analysis on their conversations. I also like that it reads as impactful as I recall it from experiencing it in game. Whatever the finer details of their relationship might be, this does show strong feelings.

Syldras · May 18

metheglyn wrote: »

[I like (and agree with) your analysis on their conversations. I also like that it reads as impactful as I recall it from experiencing it in game. Whatever the finer details of their relationship might be, this does show strong feelings.

It's interesting to look into the dynamics between them. I'd say It's clear that Mannimarco was the more leading/dominant one (maybe he's also a bit older, I don't know), but, while he tried to "lift" Galerion up with him (giving him more confidence and self-worth, encouraging him to be more daring, less humble, less obedient towards the Ritemaster and other authorities), he did not lecture or belittle him. He did seem to value him a lot, despite Galerion being emotionally much softer (and maybe also anxious) than himself. I think that's remarkable because he's shown as someone who values and seeks power so much - but at the same time he does not despise or deride his friend for being "weak".

I appreciate that the writers did this - while they could have made some simple story about adversaries or competitors from the very beginning (like there's that one evil student, and the moral one, and they always hated each other) - but no, they were close friends. It makes the whole thing more dramatic because you feel there was something precious that has been destroyed.

What's also interesting is the topic of trust. Mannimarco knows very well that what he's doing is forbidden, but he trusts his friend, he shares his progress and his plans instead of keeping everything secret. I'm sure from his viewpoint, he felt betrayed when Galerion finally reported him.

In any way, it shows that Mannimarco had, at least back then, not been cold-hearted (lacking some morals or being tempted by the forbidden, but not some emotionless sociopath). If everything would have just been about being powerful or a ruler or leader or something like that, he would probably have considered Galerion unnecessary baggage, just tried to get rid of him, and gone his own way in secret.

And to get back to the thread's topic: Something like this is what I want to see, not a cliché "born evil, always evil, only goal in life is being evil, for the sake of being evil" character.

metheglyn · May 18

Syldras wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

[I like (and agree with) your analysis on their conversations. I also like that it reads as impactful as I recall it from experiencing it in game. Whatever the finer details of their relationship might be, this does show strong feelings.

It's interesting to look into the dynamics between them. I'd say It's clear that Mannimarco was the more leading/dominant one (maybe he's also a bit older, I don't know), but, while he tried to "lift" Galerion up with him (giving him more confidence and self-worth, encouraging him to be more daring, less humble, less obedient towards the Ritemaster and other authorities), he did not lecture or belittle him. He did seem to value him a lot, despite Galerion being emotionally much softer (and maybe also anxious) than himself. I think that's remarkable because he's shown as someone who values and seeks power so much - but at the same time he does not despise or deride his friend for being "weak".

I appreciate that the writers did this - while they could have made some simple story about adversaries or competitors from the very beginning (like there's that one evil student, and the moral one, and they always hated each other) - but no, they were close friends. It makes the whole thing more dramatic because you feel there was something precious that has been destroyed.

What's also interesting is the topic of trust. Mannimarco knows very well that what he's doing is forbidden, but he trusts his friend, he shares his progress and his plans instead of keeping everything secret. I'm sure from his viewpoint, he felt betrayed when Galerion finally reported him.

In any way, it shows that Mannimarco had, at least back then, not been cold-hearted (lacking some morals or being tempted by the forbidden, but not some emotionless sociopath). If everything would have just been about being powerful or a ruler or leader or something like that, he would probably have considered Galerion unnecessary baggage, just tried to get rid of him, and gone his own way in secret.

And to get back to the thread's topic: Something like this is what I want to see, not a cliché "born evil, always evil, only goal in life is being evil, for the sake of being evil" character.

Not to be a total echo chamber, but I agree that their relationship has depth and complexity that makes it much more interesting than the standard fare of good vs. evil. I would like to see more of that kind of writing in the game.

Mannimarco might be older--his own claims of being Aldmer put his birth in the Merethic Era (according to UESP) but that has never been substantiated and might just be one of his boasts. There wasn't really much on either of them regarding specific birth years, so it's hard to say.

Anyway, if we have to face the Worm Cult again, I hope this Wormblood character has more going for him than just evil all the time. Whether he's Mannimarco in disguise, or Mannimarco's relative, or just someone Mannimarco trained up to be a leader, I want him to have depth of character.

Syldras · May 18

metheglyn wrote: »

Mannimarco might be older--his own claims of being Aldmer put his birth in the Merethic Era (according to UESP) but that has never been substantiated and might just be one of his boasts.

I'm quite sure we can rule that out, at least for this reality and timeline. I consider what we saw in Artaeum the "truth", and there, both were definitely in their teens or young adults at most; whether one of them was 3 or 5 years older than the other one or not, they were at least roughly the same age, I would say.

Galerion founded the Mages Guild in 2E 230, right after leaving Artaeum. So he must have been born somewhen in the early 2nd era, and the flashbacks we saw in Artaeum must also be from that period of time. If Mannimarco would have been born in the Merithic Era,... let's say still being a student in the 2nd era would be hardly impressive then

I just found this horrific quote from Oblivion again:

"I developed a particular fondness for Galerion, ill-preserved though he may be."

Cheers!

colossalvoids · May 18

metheglyn wrote: »

On another note, since you, I, and @JemadarofCaerSalis all think there was more to Mannimarco and Galerion's relationship than just friendship, can we declare it canon? Three is enough of a majority for that, right?

Interesting it wasn't just me back then, their relations seemed really out of place for a friendship to occur (even their "scientific" interests were pretty opposite) but a blind love situation would definitely settle it right, alongside with future possession of a body, ahem.

ArchangelIsraphel · May 20

@Syldras I just got your tag! Thank you for alerting me to the discussion- I'm reading through the thread and already seeing a lot I want to comment on. I'll absolutely contribute once I've read through the rest of the posts!

Syldras · May 20

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

@Syldras I just got your tag! Thank you for alerting me to the discussion- I'm reading through the thread and already seeing a lot I want to comment on. I'll absolutely contribute once I've read through the rest of the posts!

Oh, there you are. Well, grab a glass of sausage water then, Bosmer; it's going to be a longer read

ArchangelIsraphel · May 21

I haven't gotten all the way through reading the entire thread yet, but my fingers are itching to post this now, so here we are XD

So, the first point I want to touch on- one that always bothers me to no end about ESO- is that the developer is assuming the role the player is going to take on in the story. Especially lately, where the player character is often shoe-horned into a goody-goody hero role through the dialogue options and the assumptions NPC’s make about who they are at heart.

When they say things like “You never have to ask yourself if it’s right for you to stop them, because they want bad things for bad reasons. That’s fun!” Not only does that make the Worm Cult sound entirely one-dimensional, but it also makes the player character sound one dimensional as well. Yes, it would be impossible to take into account the nuances of every single player’s original characters and their motivations. However, they’re failing to consider any perspective other than the one they’ve decided to write the story from, which seems to be “Evil is Evil.”

But by whose definition are we deciding what “evil” means, and why is it being assumed that the player character is going to agree? Certainly, as a developer, it’s easier to write the story that way- by assuming that everyone is going to take on the role of the hero, as advertised, you don’t have to ask yourself questions like this. But it results in writing where those telling the story aren’t empathizing with their “villains”. We don’t really get to see the story from any perspective other than “This is bad, and you have to stop it because it’s bad.” We don’t really get to explore why some participants in these acts might even see them as the right thing to do.

One of the best pieces of writing advice I ever received was to treat my antagonist the same way I treat my protagonist when writing. Don't write the antagonist as a "villain" or get yourself into a headspace where you, the author actively hate them for their actions. Don't write the protagonist as a perfect "hero" or deprive them of character flaws. Instead, write them as people standing on two sides of a problem, trying to solve it in their own conflicting, imperfect ways.

Which brings me back to : “ You never have to ask yourself if it’s right for you to stop them.”

Why shouldn’t they? That seems a bit too simplistic to me, not fun at all. I’m not saying that to be insulting towards the writers, I’m saying it because I want them to call their methods into question and consider what makes the experience of role-play truly exciting.

For me, it’s character development- it’s stories where my character has one mindset going in, and comes out of them changed in some fundamental way that will leave them with memories that will carry on into their next adventure, influencing their thoughts and choices.

In other words, by telling me that you’ve created a plotline for my character where they “Never have to ask themselves if it’s right to stop them (the worm cult).” you’ve already sapped role-playing experience of an integral element.

Say I'm playing characters that I think of as heroes/protagonists. If my characters never have to question their actions, if they aren’t facing instances where their values are called into question, if they never see moments where they might even empathize with the opposition- then your “villain” isn’t doing their job. (And what if the player is role-playing as a character that doesn’t see the worm cult as opposition at all?)

I’m not saying a villain necessarily has to be redeemable. However, I do like it when a story shakes the foundations of my character’s beliefs and tests their mettle, when an interaction makes them look inward and ask themselves some uncomfortable questions.

Those are my thoughts for the moment- more later on this topic, as there were other things throughout the thread I wanted to comment on.

For now, I'll leave the thread with this quote from Vladimir Nabokov "The writer's job is to get the main character up a tree, and then once they are up there, throw rocks at them."

Or, in other words- bringing a character to a point of vulnerability, and taking them outside of their comfort zone, is one of the most important aspects of storytelling. Not presenting the audience with a plot they never have to call into question.

metheglyn · May 21

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

In other words, by telling me that you’ve created a plotline for my character where they “Never have to ask themselves if it’s right to stop them (the worm cult).” you’ve already sapped role-playing experience of an integral element.

Though I found the entirety of your post well-expressed and interesting, I wanted to highlight this part because it resonates very strongly with me.

Oftentimes in games (not just ESO and even some single-player titles) the most role-play I get out of it is by imagining conversations and motivations going on that are never expressly there. I had to work really hard to come up with a reason why my character was helping Hermaeus Mora, for example, because the way the quests worked was that I was all-in from the beginning.

I've done that with plenty of quest lines over the years, all the while wishing there was more in the game text and actions for my character to ponder.

ragnarok6644b14_ESO · May 21

I think for me it depends on what the "Evil" means. "Evil for evil's sake" or "They're unabashedly evil" means nothing. I've met some edgy people that claim they want to do things "For evil" or "because they are evil" but they are actually very nice, thoughtful people that just think being edgy is cool/are responding to the world around them.

I DO think there is a hateable category of evil things that exists that I would consider "evil" and that's essentially 2 things:
1) unreasoning selfishness (not just "I want this" but "I want this and will do anything to get it with no further thought required")
2) desiring the suffering of others who do not want to suffer

Unfortunately, while I think people who have one or both of those criteria are hateable, they do exist, and this means that categorically labeling them as "hateable" villains is not a take I've often seen. It's kinda spooky for ESO to claim that the new Worm Cult will be this - they're either making a risky claim, or don't understand what they're saying...

ArchangelIsraphel · May 21

metheglyn wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

In other words, by telling me that you’ve created a plotline for my character where they “Never have to ask themselves if it’s right to stop them (the worm cult).” you’ve already sapped role-playing experience of an integral element.

Though I found the entirety of your post well-expressed and interesting, I wanted to highlight this part because it resonates very strongly with me.

Oftentimes in games (not just ESO and even some single-player titles) the most role-play I get out of it is by imagining conversations and motivations going on that are never expressly there. I had to work really hard to come up with a reason why my character was helping Hermaeus Mora, for example, because the way the quests worked was that I was all-in from the beginning.

I've done that with plenty of quest lines over the years, all the while wishing there was more in the game text and actions for my character to ponder.

This. This is me right here.

I'll actually spend quite a bit of time while I'm questing taking notes on the interactions I'm imagining between my character and the NPC's. I'll write out my characters thoughts, mentality concerning the situation, and short sections of emotional/physical reactions. Then I'll take those notes later and write whole scenes about them.

I find adding those nuances myself makes the game and its stories a whole lot more interesting to me, because I get to ask the difficult questions the game sometimes isn't asking at all.

Funny that you mention Hermaeus Mora, because that was a place where I really struggled with my altmer Templar specifically, until I realized his own desire for knowledge and tendencies towards recordkeeping presented a strong temptation for him. Then I had to ask myself how far he'd go for knowledge, whether his own curiosity could be a weakness that multiple Daedric princes might try to exploit. It ended up being really fun to explore his limitations, his concept of honor, and how he balances light and darkness inside of himself. And of course, most of that had to happen outside of the game itself.

But yes. I want the game to test me. Sadly the answers to a lot of questions are pretty clear-cut in many of the newer questlines, where as I felt the older ones gave my characters more to work with.

metheglyn · May 21

ragnarok6644b14_ESO wrote: »

I think for me it depends on what the "Evil" means. "Evil for evil's sake" or "They're unabashedly evil" means nothing. I've met some edgy people that claim they want to do things "For evil" or "because they are evil" but they are actually very nice, thoughtful people that just think being edgy is cool/are responding to the world around them.

I DO think there is a hateable category of evil things that exists that I would consider "evil" and that's essentially 2 things:
1) unreasoning selfishness (not just "I want this" but "I want this and will do anything to get it with no further thought required")
2) desiring the suffering of others who do not want to suffer

Unfortunately, while I think people who have one or both of those criteria are hateable, they do exist, and this means that categorically labeling them as "hateable" villains is not a take I've often seen. It's kinda spooky for ESO to claim that the new Worm Cult will be this - they're either making a risky claim, or don't understand what they're saying...

It seems to me they are using a very simplistic and basic definition of evil for lack of better motivation for the cult. It honestly comes across to me as if they didn't put that much thought into it.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

In other words, by telling me that you’ve created a plotline for my character where they “Never have to ask themselves if it’s right to stop them (the worm cult).” you’ve already sapped role-playing experience of an integral element.

Though I found the entirety of your post well-expressed and interesting, I wanted to highlight this part because it resonates very strongly with me.

Oftentimes in games (not just ESO and even some single-player titles) the most role-play I get out of it is by imagining conversations and motivations going on that are never expressly there. I had to work really hard to come up with a reason why my character was helping Hermaeus Mora, for example, because the way the quests worked was that I was all-in from the beginning.

I've done that with plenty of quest lines over the years, all the while wishing there was more in the game text and actions for my character to ponder.

This. This is me right here.

I'll actually spend quite a bit of time while I'm questing taking notes on the interactions I'm imagining between my character and the NPC's. I'll write out my characters thoughts, mentality concerning the situation, and short sections of emotional/physical reactions. Then I'll take those notes later and write whole scenes about them.

I find adding those nuances myself makes the game and its stories a whole lot more interesting to me, because I get to ask the difficult questions the game sometimes isn't asking at all.

Funny that you mention Hermaeus Mora, because that was a place where I really struggled with my altmer Templar specifically, until I realized his own desire for knowledge and tendencies towards recordkeeping presented a strong temptation for him. Then I had to ask myself how far he'd go for knowledge, whether his own curiosity could be a weakness that multiple Daedric princes might try to exploit. It ended up being really fun to explore his limitations, his concept of honor, and how he balances light and darkness inside of himself. And of course, most of that had to happen outside of the game itself.

But yes. I want the game to test me. Sadly the answers to a lot of questions are pretty clear-cut in many of the newer questlines, where as I felt the older ones gave my characters more to work with.

My character not being a scholar or particularly interested in forbidden knowledge was content to go through his life ignoring Mora. He does have a 'spite the daedric princes when you can' motivation, but that didn't quite work for how deep he had to get into Mora's realm and clutches. I kept coming back to the question: why would he do this? Because he certainly wouldn't just take Mora's word for it that if he didn't, the world would end. Of course, game-wise you had to sign the contract before you even knew what you were getting into, making it even harder for me to justify.

In the end, I got him started by deciding that Bastian urged him to help Leramil, since helping people is what Bastian does, and since he and Bastian are really good friends he would trust Bastian's sense of right. Then, he also became concerned with keeping Gadayn from falling in with bunch of Mora disciples, because the young mer was too trusting for his own good. And then, while he was deep in Mora's world, just maybe he would find a way to hamper Mora. He didn't really end up succeeding in anything other than serving Mora's end goals, and that made him pretty angry by the end.

Of course in the game he's at the congratulatory party with everyone and instead of being able to act angry, he had to be cool with Mora erasing everyone's memories. Yeesh. But now I'm just rambling my general dissatisfaction instead of talking to the point, which is that I want more role-playing in my role-playing games.

Syldras · May 21

@ArchangelIsraphel Wonderful post, as so often. I'd like to focus on two central points:

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

However, they’re failing to consider any perspective other than the one they’ve decided to write the story from, which seems to be “Evil is Evil.”
But by whose definition are we deciding what “evil” means, and why is it being assumed that the player character is going to agree?

To be honest, I get the impression that many people aren't aware anymore that morals are a cultural thing, and as such vary very much from culture to culture and era to era. Some might be more universal (like not randomly murdering your own kin), but in many cases, there are huge differences. Even if we come to the topic of violence: Under which circumstances might it be right or justified? In the Middle Ages, in some rural town (I choose this example because this fits ESO quite well), people might just have killed, let's say, a thief caught in the act. No one would have cared. Today, we of course know that this thief also has rights and dignity and we can't just whack him with a hammer on the spot. We don't throw criminals into the arena like it was done in ancient Rome, anymore either. So morals have changed over time. We, today, would consider throwing someone into an arena to be eaten alive by lions "evil" - back then, it was thought of as normal and not evil at all. So what is "evil" then? There just isn't an universal definition.

By the way, I also have the impression that ESO was caring more for different cultural ideas, beliefs and morals in Tamriel's cultures in its earlier years than in later stories. Although I generally have the impression that some of it isn't taken really seriously, think of the Bosmer religion, for example, and their taboo to eat plants. It's a huge sacrilege, in all seriousness it's a horrible thing from their point of view, according to their world view and belief. I get the feeling that in game, it's often treated more like a joke, like "Look how weird they are". While even in the real world, there are lots of different ideas about what may be killed and eaten and what not (some cultures may eat snails but would never eat horses, other would eat horses but never snails, there are cultures that eat insects and others who don't, etc).

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I’m not saying a villain necessarily has to be redeemable. However, I do like it when a story shakes the foundations of my character’s beliefs and tests their mettle, when an interaction makes them look inward and ask themselves some uncomfortable questions.

I get the feeling we aren't supposed to think about the stories much. We're supposed to consume them. And that's truly a pity because TES has such a rich lore and so many really interesting stories could be told.

ArchangelIsraphel · May 22

metheglyn wrote: »

Of course in the game he's at the congratulatory party with everyone and instead of being able to act angry, he had to be cool with Mora erasing everyone's memories. Yeesh. But now I'm just rambling my general dissatisfaction instead of talking to the point, which is that I want more role-playing in my role-playing games.

I don't think it's rambling at all, I think sharing personal snippets of your characters story is pertinent to the subject. After all, the question is a matter of what we want out of the experience of questing and dialogue. Talking about how we each individually handle the stories and take them beyond the game gives the developers insight into how detailed our thinking process is. Especially when we aren't seeing it in the same clear cut, black and white, good and bad light they seem to be.

I also just really enjoy hearing about other peoples characters and how they interpreted the quest line, making it work for them. The image of your character at the end of the quest, needing to disguise his anger during a congratulatory celebration, paints a vivid picture of his inner world. Even though you had to work to find a way to make the quest line fit him, that tense moment of emotional turmoil has some really good character building behind it.

I also enjoyed how you involved Bastian. That's something I like to do to, with my companions, so I really love it when others incorporate them into their characters decision making process.

Syldras wrote: »

To be honest, I get the impression that many people aren't aware anymore that morals are a cultural thing, and as such vary very much from culture to culture and era to era.

By the way, I also have the impression that ESO was caring more for different cultural ideas, beliefs and morals in Tamriel's cultures in its earlier years than in later stories.

Absolutely. And that plays heavily into the problems I see with how the player character is being depicted.

I think, in some ways, the developer has lost touch with what role-playing really means in a game like this. We have all of these cultures within the TES series, some with very different ideas of what good and evil mean. However, it seems to me that the role the player character is meant to take on is always written from some over-arching modern sense of morality. In recent expansions, it's like they take every culture and bit of lore in TES, point out what would be “bad” about it by modern societal standards, and say “See that? That’s your enemy, that’s what you’re meant to defeat!”

The player character is almost treated as an observer of the world, a judge that stands over it, rather than an actual part of the world. Something outside of it with a perspective that doesn't really belong in Tamriel.

But the reality is, that wouldn’t be the player characters perspective at all. When we role play, we’re taking on a role, and that means we might be leaving our own real-world cultural sense of right and wrong at the door. They aren’t going to have this over-arching, almost omnipotent view of good and evil- they are going to have a perspective that is biased by their culture, their upbringing, and their personal experiences.

What good and evil means to an altmer is going to be different for an argonian. What a Telvanni finds just is going to be completely different from

Syldras wrote: »

Although I generally have the impression that some of it isn't taken really seriously, think of the Bosmer religion, for example, and their taboo to eat plants. It's a huge sacrilege, in all seriousness it's a horrible thing from their point of view, according to their world view and belief. I get the feeling that in game, it's often treated more like a joke, like "Look how weird they are".

Yes, actually, I've always felt that the Bosmer are treated as a bit of a side-show in ESO. Now don't get me wrong- I love my Bosmer humor (Weird jokes are 1000% in character for my bosmer) but I also find the culture fascinating because it's such a departure from what we usually see in fantasy. I get the impression that it tends to get treated as a joke because it flips the script on veganism, and veganism itself gets treated this way in the real world.

I play multiple bosmer, all of whom tend to take their beliefs to various extremes. Some are more relaxed than others. But I enjoy the challenge of playing a character whose basis for decision making is completely outside of the scope of what I believe in myself. I find it to be a shame that the more serious side of them doesn't see more expression, especially since the more isolated, traditional tribes and their rituals can present some interesting moral conundrums to outsiders.

I joke about bosmer cannibalism a lot. However, I'm also not joking- several of my bosmer practice cannibalism. It's actually a shame I can't go into it in depth here, but the psychology of justifying it as the right thing to do is interesting to explore in character. Do I condone it in real life? Of course not. But it exemplifies what we're talking about here- our society sees it as an act of evil, while facets of bosmer culture do not . Delve into the psychology of real-world tribes, and you'll find that they also have their own justifications, even if they aren't palatable to our own society.

Sometimes we do get quests that feature these rituals. I recall one, I believe it's in reapers march, which depicts the Meat Mandate. (I'll see if I can find it on the wiki) but most of these quests shows the bosmers practices as shocking, barbaric, or details negative consequences concerning them. We never get to see them practicing their rituals in ways that exemplify why they're meaningful to the bosmer. I'm not sure I can think of one instance where these beliefs are shown in a positive light, from the perspective of the bosmers that practice them. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) They're mostly presented as something awful the player is meant to put a stop to.

I do respect some of the earlier quests for giving the player agency to act in accordance to Y'ffre through the dialogue, however. Though I fear these choices will end up being frowny-face "bad" with the new dialogue update.

I can already hear the distant rumble of people demanding to know how certain bosmer rituals can ever be depicted in a positive light. But get into a bosmer's head via roleplay, and it can be really interesting to explore the emotions concerned.

I've gone waaaay off topic now >.>; Back to reading the rest of the thread! XD

Syldras · May 22

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

We have all of these cultures within the TES series, some with very different ideas of what good and evil mean. However, it seems to me that the role the player character is meant to take on is always written from some over-arching modern sense of morality. In recent expansions, it's like they take every culture and bit of lore in TES, point out what would be “bad” about it by modern societal standards, and say “See that? That’s your enemy, that’s what you’re meant to defeat!”

I'd attribute that to a growing tendency that not adhering to real-world morals even in fiction is possibly seen as a risk nowadays; the risk it might cause a scandal ("This game/movie/book has cannibalism/slavery/racism/whatever and it's not universally condemned by non-enemy chracters - this piece of media is propagating evil things!!!"). Of course it's nonsense to assume that everything an artist depicts or narrates means approving it. But an increasing number of people seems to believe that, for some reasons.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I find it to be a shame that the more serious side of them doesn't see more expression, especially since the more isolated, traditional tribes and their rituals can present some interesting moral conundrums to outsiders.

Unfortunately, I have the impression if we ever get introduced to a new tribe, they'll be non-traditional Bosmer (for what ever reasons) who are no cannibals.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Sometimes we do get quests that feature these rituals. I recall one, I believe it's in reapers march, which depicts the Meat Mandate. (I'll see if I can find it on the wiki) but most of these quests shows the bosmers practices as shocking, barbaric, or details negative consequences concerning them. We never get to see them practicing their rituals in ways that exemplify why they're meaningful to the bosmer. I'm not sure I can think of one instance where these beliefs are shown in a positive light, from the perspective of the bosmers that practice them. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) They're mostly presented as something awful the player is meant to put a stop to.

No, you're correct, it's usually depicted as the horrible thing to somehow prevent.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I can already hear the distant rumble of people demanding to know how certain bosmer rituals can ever be depicted in a positive light. But get into a bosmer's head via roleplay, and it can be really interesting to explore the emotions concerned.

You'll get a private message about that

It's a pity we can't even really discuss it completely here, for example not with real-world historical tribal references, because it might scare someone. Some people here know that my intentions are purely educational (being a historian and such in that weird parallel reality where I'm not a Master Wizard of Great House Telvanni

), but still.

ArchangelIsraphel · May 22

Syldras wrote: »

You'll get a private message about that

It's a pity we can't even really discuss it completely here, for example not with real-world historical tribal references, because it might scare someone. Some people here know that my intentions are purely educational (being a historian and such in that weird parallel reality where I'm not a Master Wizard of Great House Telvanni ), but still.

Good! I welcome it

It is a shame I can't share my findings here. I've actually done a lot of research about the topic even before I came across the TESO and bosmer (My interest in the mythologies of different cultures leads me on some wild tangents at times. I also wrote an extensive paper in high school on the subject, to the great displeasure of my social studies teacher :P) so when I started playing through the quests, I drew some parallels between them and real-world practices that I don't think are commonly known. It would be quite educational to talk about in the open, but alas.

metheglyn · May 22

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

Of course in the game he's at the congratulatory party with everyone and instead of being able to act angry, he had to be cool with Mora erasing everyone's memories. Yeesh. But now I'm just rambling my general dissatisfaction instead of talking to the point, which is that I want more role-playing in my role-playing games.

I don't think it's rambling at all, I think sharing personal snippets of your characters story is pertinent to the subject. After all, the question is a matter of what we want out of the experience of questing and dialogue. Talking about how we each individually handle the stories and take them beyond the game gives the developers insight into how detailed our thinking process is. Especially when we aren't seeing it in the same clear cut, black and white, good and bad light they seem to be.

I also just really enjoy hearing about other peoples characters and how they interpreted the quest line, making it work for them. The image of your character at the end of the quest, needing to disguise his anger during a congratulatory celebration, paints a vivid picture of his inner world. Even though you had to work to find a way to make the quest line fit him, that tense moment of emotional turmoil has some really good character building behind it.

I also enjoyed how you involved Bastian. That's something I like to do to, with my companions, so I really love it when others incorporate them into their characters decision making process.

I really enjoy the companion system and I think, by and large, they've done a good job making the companions come across as well-rounded characters. My characters are rarely without a companion to keep them company, and I can't help but put them into my stories.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Yes, actually, I've always felt that the Bosmer are treated as a bit of a side-show in ESO. Now don't get me wrong- I love my Bosmer humor (Weird jokes are 1000% in character for my bosmer) but I also find the culture fascinating because it's such a departure from what we usually see in fantasy. I get the impression that it tends to get treated as a joke because it flips the script on veganism, and veganism itself gets treated this way in the real world.

As a vegan myself, this is how the Bosmer dietary representation came across to me: just a big joke highlighting how silly veganism is perceived. It's akin to a quest in High Isle where a distraught Breton wants you to save his friend, turns out his friend is a pig, and it's played for laughs: would you look at this goof, treating animals with respect? It is possible I'm overly sensitive to the matter, but honestly such treatment really is a disrespect to the lore. The Bosmer have deep beliefs about the Green and we seldom get to see that represented.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Sometimes we do get quests that feature these rituals. I recall one, I believe it's in reapers march, which depicts the Meat Mandate. (I'll see if I can find it on the wiki) but most of these quests shows the bosmers practices as shocking, barbaric, or details negative consequences concerning them. We never get to see them practicing their rituals in ways that exemplify why they're meaningful to the bosmer. I'm not sure I can think of one instance where these beliefs are shown in a positive light, from the perspective of the bosmers that practice them. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) They're mostly presented as something awful the player is meant to put a stop to.

There's a quest in Malabal Tor where you discover the fate of a village who was wiped out (it's one of the Indaenir series of quests) and you discover that, though an aggressive clan attacked and killed them all, they cleverly used the Meat Mandate to achieve the final victory. I thought it was a good insight into Bosmer culture that was treated seriously.

Looked it up, and it's called https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Right_of_Theft

I also really liked the Vinedusk Rangers, because their depiction shows another side of Bosmer not played for laughs.

ArchangelIsraphel · May 22

metheglyn wrote: »

As a vegan myself, this is how the Bosmer dietary representation came across to me: just a big joke highlighting how silly veganism is perceived. It's akin to a quest in High Isle where a distraught Breton wants you to save his friend, turns out his friend is a pig, and it's played for laughs: would you look at this goof, treating animals with respect? It is possible I'm overly sensitive to the matter, but honestly such treatment really is a disrespect to the lore. The Bosmer have deep beliefs about the Green and we seldom get to see that represented.

I'm going to go off on a tangent here, but I find it interesting!

I don't think you're overly sensitive. From my perspective, peoples impression of things like veganism can get colored by the loudest, most extreme members of a group, and sometimes, they aren't always the best representatives. Because some advocates tend to do things that vegans who are just living normal lives would never consider, outsiders get the wrong impression. As a result, those that don't understand turn it into a joke, when it really isn't.

It's very similar with other groups where certain perspectives get buried due to poor representation. You end up getting labeled by an outside perception that doesn't actually represent you due to the actions of people that have nothing to do with you. I'm not vegan, but I can empathize with what you must feel when people treat it as something to laugh at. It's a social issue I see mirrored across many different walks of life. Or am I making an assumption by making that comparison? Feel free to correct me. Always open to listening to different perspectives.

I think it's really interesting that you can see your own feelings reflected in those of the Bosmer. I've often imagined that the Bosmer must feel the same way about the Green as I do about my own animals. I raise horses, and own a few rescued dairy cows, and have goats and sheep. Treating animals with respect is no joke to me. When I roleplay, I take that emotional intensity and, instead, apply it to the plants and trees.

Actually, channeling some of my more negative experiences with people in real life can be helpful. When I think of all the people who've ever told me that a rescue animal was "just a goat" or "just a pig", I recall my emotions, flip that to "It's just a tree" or "it's just a flower", and I find I can write my bosmer from a place of genuine fervor. Even if I'm leaving myself and my personal morals at the door when I roleplay, I still draw on certain elements of myself to bring realism to my characters.

But yes- I really want to see more instances where the beliefs of the bosmer make an emotional impact. I mean, is it really so extreme to view the Green this way? How is it funny to look at a tree and regard it as something to be venerated? I don't even think it's all that difficult to imagine how a Bosmer must feel about the trees and plants. I think there's something genuinely spiritual about forests in real life, especially enormous, old-growth forests that might harbor rare species of plants under their bows. Cutting them down has always felt like a violation of something I'd almost describe as holy.

Side note-going to visit the California redwoods in real life can make you feel as tiny as an actual bosmer XD

metheglyn wrote: »

There's a quest in Malabal Tor where you discover the fate of a village who was wiped out (it's one of the Indaenir series of quests) and you discover that, though an aggressive clan attacked and killed them all, they cleverly used the Meat Mandate to achieve the final victory. I thought it was a good insight into Bosmer culture that was treated seriously.

Thank you! Yes, that was one of the better quests. And an interesting exploration of the Meat Mandate's potential.