Please sell me on Sheogorath

thedocbwarren · July 31

GibbsieUK wrote: »

I liked him in Oblivion. Shivering Isles expansion was ok in regards to the land. How he was written not so much. Skyrim.... not really a big fan here. In ESO I think he'd been toned down even more to be less scary/dangerous. And this new bit they just released is just badly written. He's the Daedric Prince of Madness, which now appears to mean stupid. He makes so many moronic choices throughout, it beggars belief.

I agree with tomofhyrule here:

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I hate Sheogorath.

I hated Shivering Isles. It was really where we went from “Prince of Madness” to “Prince of omg so random and funny!” and it really took away from the character. That was where Sheogorath essentially became the Alice in Wonderland expy he is today, and that really meant dropping (or at least severely minimizing) the dark sides of Madness in general. It’s the same way a lot of media with DC’s Joker is more about the clown part and his murderous side is sanitized under fifty layers of joking: It’s more corporate-friendly to not talk about him as a psycho and then people love to think of him instead as a joke. One which I think ran its course about 20 years ago.

Media/entertainment across the board has reduced various "mad and bad" characters to shells of their former selves. You have Dr Who's The Master (my favourite was Roger Delgado) who was a cold, calculating sociopath who would wipe an entire race out with no hesitation if they were in his way, to the most recent incarnations - starting with John Simm, as scenery chewing loons.

Professor Moriarty in the Sherlock Holmes books and on screen played opposite Basil Rathbone by George Zucco, was also cold, calculating, and willing to put an end to anyone who got in his way. In Sherlock, he was played by Andrew Scott (opposite Benedict Cumberbatch), as a scenery chewing loon.

I think it all ties in with Hollywood's obsession with trying to paint villains in a good light. For example
That 101 Dalmations prequel with Emma Stone, where Cruella has it in for dalmation's as her mother was chased/pushed to her death by some. (I mean! Really!?)
Wicked, etc. ret-conning the wicked witch from the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, to being lovely at the start.
Same for Maleificent from Sleeping Beauty.

Oh yes - The Acolyte, where the Empire and Sith are lovely, and Jedi are evil. As one actor in it said "there is no good or evil, it depends what side you are standing on"
[snip]

Stop trying to make me feel sorry for criminal, murdering scum!

They don't understand (or like, I think) heroes, and they think criminals are not to blame due to their past*.

*I think they refer to something like this in this most recent Sheogorath abomination. When you are getting the items to open the barrier, he mentions a "time before" in a sorrowful tone. Not entirely sure what this is, and if it has been revealed already but I missed it (I skipped loads of speech during his holiday quest as the writing is so bad), or if they are planning something further down the road, but I have this feeling.....

Sorry if I went a bit, well, "Ranty", there but it bugs me.

All good, and I caught that "time before" sorrow line. I immediately thought of "The hero of Kvatch" and wondered if that was what was "the time before" since time is meaningless to him. I felt this was the same Sheo from Skyrim and his madness was angry dementia-like vs madness I think I remember differently in other games but perhaps I'm mis-remembering.

I did like the quest but it's bugged and to fetchy and needless roaming. I wished we could roam around Shivering Isles. The minimal investment task questing is really grating on me this year and I'm really becoming less and less happy over time with the game. Hope this clears up.
[edited to remove quote]

cyclonus11 · July 31

Enough with the cheese!

I was promised CABBAGE!!

Glorious_Platypus · 1:28AM

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Enough with the cheese!

I was promised CABBAGE!!

My cabbages!!!

spartaxoxo · 1:44AM

One reason that I like Sheogorath is because he's a different flavor of terrifying and that each of the Daedric princes have different types of both terror and intrigue. Sheogorath seems like he'd be a good time. But there is no reasoning with him. So often the hero could maybe talk or fight their way out of trouble with the Princes. But there's always that danger with Sheo that he'd just get bored and turn you into a block or cheese.

I like that each of the Daedric princes represent different fears of people

Also, he's just kind of funny.

ETA

They have overdone the cheese thing though

spartaxoxo · 2:19AM

Glorious_Platypus wrote: »

People sue mcdonalds because the coffee was too hot and now every cup sold has to have a warning label saying it's hot. It's a circus. Videogames are no exception. That's why indie and small studio games are selling better than mainstream ones.

I'm not going to go into here because it's not a suitable topic for the forums but you really should look up that hot coffee case. It's not at all the package of lies it got marketed as.

spartaxoxo · 2:29AM

Syldras wrote: »

mdjessup4906 wrote: »

Thats the point. It looks like abuse to us from the outside but they both agree to it in private. No way to prove that of course unless the writers sneak a line in somewhere.
Headcanon I guess *shrug*

I'm quite sure it was hinted on being a consensual arrangement in one of their earlier stories (I think even in base game, maybe in Coldharbor?). I remember it sounded to me like he's not even actually just some hired servant, but basically chooses to play that role and they're actually lovers.

Yes. They hinted at that from the beginning. It's a bdsm relationship disguised as a overbearing and abusive lady and her manservant because they're both afraid of the backlash from high society. Or at least that's what it seems to be hinting at to me. A more serious Stibbons and Lady Laurent quest would probably be a good idea to delve into what's driving them to act that way imo.

When you meet Stibbons on Solstice and the shoe is on the other foot for once, he even offers you an entire year of his salary to help her.

GibbsieUK wrote: »

Media/entertainment across the board has reduced various "mad and bad" characters to shells of their former selves. You have Dr Who's The Master (my favourite was Roger Delgado) who was a cold, calculating sociopath who would wipe an entire race out with no hesitation if they were in his way, to the most recent incarnations - starting with John Simm, as scenery chewing loons.

This is why I'm really not on board with the whole "complex" villains are simply better train that so many are trying to cater towards. Sometimes it is better for the story if they aren't trying to shoe horn in complexity to the villain and taking that time away from making the setting or heroes more complex instead. It really depends on the villain and the story being told. Sometimes the more complex story comes from a simple, black and white evil villain, and how the various characters interacting with them respond to it.

Anyway OP I'm glad you asked this question there's some really interesting insights in this thread. It really makes you wonder what does make a good villain anyway?

Syldras · 5:03AM

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Yes. They hinted at that from the beginning. It's a bdsm relationship disguised as a overbearing and abusive lady and her manservant because they're both afraid of the backlash from high society. Or at least that's what it seems to be hinting at to me. A more serious Stibbons and Lady Laurent quest would probably be a good idea to delve into what's driving them to act that way imo.

There's actually an Austrian novella from 1870 about just this (by a slightly peculiar author). I had already wondered if the person who wrote Lady Laurent and Stibbons might have drawn inspiration from that story - and gave it a much funnier tone, for mass appeal, or whatever.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This is why I'm really not on board with the whole "complex" villains are simply better train that so many are trying to cater towards.

Most mass media depictions of villains (including those new Disney movies) aren't actually more complex, from my point of view. Isn't it mostly "something bad happened to that person which made them evil" and using that as a kind of explanation (because most people seem to wish for simple answers for actions they can't relate to)? That's not exactly a complex psychological picture. Also, it's always the same, which also means it's nothing more than a standard cliché. The cliché part is what bores me, no matter if the cliché is "great flawless hero", "caricaturish evil guy" or "pitiful poor villain who is actually not so bad but just traumatized". Just adding new clichés doesn't make it more complex.

spartaxoxo · 5:25AM

Syldras wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Yes. They hinted at that from the beginning. It's a bdsm relationship disguised as a overbearing and abusive lady and her manservant because they're both afraid of the backlash from high society. Or at least that's what it seems to be hinting at to me. A more serious Stibbons and Lady Laurent quest would probably be a good idea to delve into what's driving them to act that way imo.

There's actually an Austrian novella from 1870 about just this (by a slightly peculiar author). I had already wondered if the person who wrote Lady Laurent and Stibbons might have drawn inspiration from that story - and gave it a much funnier tone, for mass appeal, or whatever.

Interesting. What's the name?

Syldras wrote: »

Most mass media depictions of villains (including those new Disney movies) aren't actually more complex, from my point of view. Isn't it mostly "something bad happened to that person which made them evil" and using that as a kind of explanation (because most people seem to wish for simple answers for actions they can't relate to)? That's not exactly a complex psychological picture. Also, it's always the same, which also means it's nothing more than a standard cliché. The cliché part is what bores me, no matter if the cliché is "great flawless hero", "caricaturish evil guy" or "pitiful poor villain who is actually not so bad but just traumatized". Just adding new clichés doesn't make it more complex.

That is usually the route they take but they also usually use it to inform why the villain is taking the extreme measures they're taking. But sometimes it really detracts from the story. Other times it's well executed. It depends on the example, really.

I think cliche writing is more common when studios try to enforce a standard regardless if the story really calls for it or not. People wanted more complex villains after the success of them on very well written shows like The Sopranos. But, then they started to shoe horn that kind of writing into everything and then that led to the tragic backstory becoming popular again as an easy cliche way to fulfill it.