I've been thinking a lot lately about Bethesda's insistence upon never revealing any canon details about the identities of the various protagonists of their series (with the one exception of Cyrus the Restless). Supposedly this is done so that gamers feel like they played an actual part in Tamriel's history, and the official story usually involves the Hero as an agent of Prophecy who existed at a time period where the timestream was unstable and could have been any of millions of types of people.

I can buy that, but at the same time it would feel like a more cohesive world if these Agents of Prophecy left behind some sort of name and memory, and didn't just fade into the background as if they didn't matter. A good example of a series that let you play whoever you wanted but later gave a definite identity to the protagonist is the Knights of the Old Republic games. I didn't personally feel the least bit put out by finding out that the Jedi Exile was actually a woman despite the fact I played as a male.

But to keep this topic mostly lore friendly and not about game mechanics , I'd like to know your opinions - do you think that despite being talked of only ambiguously, that the Heroes of Tamriel had actual races/birthsigns/genders/classes, etc. or do you think they existed as pure Agents of Prophecy which simply assumed various forms in the eyes of different people? In other words, was the Nerevarine actually, for example, a Dark Elf Spellsword underneath all the vagueness, or was he/she/it simply a being of pure ambiguity and energy to whom others could attach attributes they found heroic?

That's the trade-off between character customisation and consistent in-game history, I guess. But in lore terms, I think in Morrowind for example, you are playing what really happened, but this story isn't what gets out to the general public. ESPECIALLY with the Nerevarine, who is basically controlled by the Empire, so the Empire will probably spread around whatever they want people to believe. Even if the Nerevarine you play is a murdering psycho, the historic Nerevarine might still be a heroic swordfigher to the Imperials, or something else to the Morrowind people, just because that's what they want to believe.

The explanations like the Dragon Break and the already established weird time stuff (Vivec being always a god AND once a mortal at the same time, things like that) are nice hand-waves for the whole thing, too.

I wouldn't really like 'canon' versions of the player characters, just because once they start sticking names, races and backgrounds onto the previous characters it feels wrong somehow. Maybe in future games, after a certain period of time has passed - I doubt anyone would care if they named the Daggerfall character, just because it was ages ago and most people started with Morrowind. Similarly in TES 8 or whatever, I reckon nobody'd notice the Nerevarine being named

Dragon Breaks shouldn't be abused for that. They're quite elegant if you get what they actually are.

---

Perhaps it helps to realize that without mass media like television or newspapers it's very hard to identify some one you've never seen before. You have a name but no face to the name and half a dozen stories that would make you expect to see a person that is larger then life. So if almost nobody in Tamriel is going to know who the Hero was, how are we going to know? Or even why should we?

We have quite a bit of information about men and women who, compared to the Heroes of these various adventures never accomplished much in their lives. You can read about every bastard Septim's cousin, but nobody knows in the Hero of Battlespire was a man or a woman. What a shame!

It's about motivations and intent. By adopting the method of a silent protagonist throughout their games, Beth has created a freedom that doesn't necessarily exist in Bioware's games. The dialogue options you are given in Morrowind and Oblivion generally belong to three categories: generic topics that are left completely ambiguous how they are transitioned into, short sentences in the affirmative sense (accepting quests, etc) and short sentences in the negative sense. They are leaving how you design your character completely up to you, not in only in how your character might approach other people but also in their motivations for doing something. For example, I had two completely different characters that I decided I would try to find a way for them to join and advance through all of the guilds and main-quest. One was a religious healer who, feeling the scourge of the Daedra closing in, set out on a mission to purge them from Tamriel. Upon entering and completing SI, she felt somehow corrupted and tainted, and that then propelled her into the darker quests. My next one became a vampire very early on, and liking the feel of power, decided to gain power and control over everything he could get his grubby little paws on. Two completely different interpretations on essentially one experience.

Bioware's games, on the other hand, specify your experiences by creating choices that physically impact this universe they've created, but it's prescribed. If someone goes through the supposedly good ending, they can't do it for nefarious reasons because the motivations have been laid down by how they approach other characters, other quests, etc in dialogue.

This way, Bioware can create a story, after the game is done, about what happened to the protagonist by choosing one of the PC's they've created and running from there and they won't have many contradictions to run into because they've already set down that PC's motivations. Whereas with the ES, Beth has to work around the potential for EVERY conceivable character because they themselves haven't defined the PC's motivations. Even if there is only one ending in an ES game.

And if you want an in universe explanation, then remember that there isn't nearly the degree of news agencies that there is here in RL. When the Nerevarine struck down Dagoth Ur, there wasn't a reporter there asking for his comments on it for the Balmora Times. News travels much more by word of mouth in the ES world. Hence why you can have so many different civilizations jammed together and still have secrets to find.

Also, yo must realize that the PC is, being who they are, shrouded with folklore and made up stories. Would you really know who Chuck Norris was if al you know about hims is that he eats nails without cereal for breakfast. It's kind of like when the Scotts didn't believe Mel Gibson was William Wallace in Braveheart.

I wouldn't mind the vagueness if my character actually did something (I'm looking at you, TESIV :stare: ). That way, it feels like my character was larger than life, beyond human/mortal (didn't settle down and have kids and/or a job or something mundane). I came from obscurity, did something awesome, and then left for adventures unknown. :ninja:

It would be nice if there was more than just a vague mention - like NPCs or books actively speculating about what the Hero was like, interviews with quest NPCs that met the hero, and more details about the events the Hero (me!) endured. Instead, so far, the Hero is mentioned passingly in a book and forgotten about. Why am I forgotten if I'm so special?

Of course, this all highlights the need for a pronoun that encompasses the existence of a gender without actually specifying a gender. S/he doesn't really cut it, and "it" is too dehumanizing.

I would definitely feel put-off. It's not like the "true" identity of a hero would offend me, so much as the revelation that any protagonist of a particular game other than a Dunmer Spellsword or an Imperial Knight would be labeled "illegitimate".

I want my characters to be representitive of any nebulous RP archetype I can think of - preserving the anonymity of the protagonist is the only way to keep the game approachable.

It's not just Bethesda. In Dragon Age, you're "The Warden". In Doom, you're "The Marine". In the classic Fallout games, you're "The Vault Dweller" or "The Chosen One". The X-Wing series had your pilot named as "Rookie One" or "Ace". The Ultima series had you as "The Avatar". The Elite/Frontier series called you simply "Commander". In Magic Carpet, you're "The Apprentice". And so on.

In fact, about all games will either give you a predetermined persona (you play as Lara Croft or Duke Nukem) or at least name (you are Commander Shepard or J.C. Denton), or they'll resort to referring to you just by title. This is especially needed now that games have voice acting. And for a game set in a world as diverse as TES, it is especially needed: if they let you be a human, elf, khajiit or argonian, then they can't really say "actually, your character's true name is Revan". A predefined identity might work when all the character possibilities can fit with that identity (e.g.: you can only play humans), but you can't come up with a name that would suit for people of either six and of all ten races of Nirn.

So, instead of calling you Sir Bob, then you get a title, which anonymises your character.

I absolutely hated the fact that I could make my own choices in KOTOR, but none of it mattered. My character in KOTOR chose the dark side ending, and my KOTOR II character was male. When it turns out that Revan chose the Light and the Exile was female, I was VERY put off. I think it's perfect the way it is in TES, where the Nerevarine is referred to as the Nerevarine, nothing more.

Just a Title in a Anonymous State and nothing more. I will not be too please if they say my character was a Dark Elf or its profession was a Spellsword or the fact they choose the gender for me.

This is a problem encountered in games where players are given choices, being able to make choices and having them reflect on the world is fun, but if the game gets a sequel, than you encounter a problem, you have to decide how to adress this in later games. Some games will define a particular set of options as "canon", in the Elder Scrolls, though, Bethesda chose the option of keeping the actual identity of the character vague, and I prefer this choice, as it allows the player to make the hero whoever they want. It's rather offputting when I go to great lengths to create a particular character, probably one I like, and envision the hero of the game as that character. Then when a sequel is made, it suddenly tells me that the hero was a completely different character, and probably one I'd never have played if given the choice. Of course, this does mean that there is no definite identity for the hero, but it's a sacrifice that must be made in order to avoid all but one character potion becoming completely not canon.

If the game had somewhat more limited options, another approach that could have been done is to have a few choices that would determine the general identity of the last game's hero early on in the game. In KOTOR 2, for example, while actual Star Wars canon might have assigned a specific identity to Revan, in the game, several dialog options the player could choose at the start of the game would determine what sort of person Revan was, but that case, things were a little more limited. While you could choose your six, appearance, name, class and such, you were always human, you would always be revealed to have actually been Revan, you would always be a Jedi, and while quests often gave you more than one way of completing thwem and you could choose between the light side or the dark side, in the Elder Scrolls, things are a little different. You can be any one of ten races, and there is already a very long list of premade classes to choose, and that's not accounting for custom classes, while the main quest remains the same for all characters and has the same ending (at least in Morrowind and Oblivion, and for Daggerfall the game has the Warp in the West to account for different possible outcomes, but that already seems like enough of a handwave, if it's abused too much and used every game, it would lose all credibility.) and it is assumed the character does it (though I suppose that if you don't want to do it you could even assume that your character failed the task or refused the call and some other hero took it up instead.) but which factions you join and such are entirely your choice (and I do think that the fact that the Nerevarine is the head of House Redoran or something would not go unnoticed if the character were given a predefined identity.) there's no way the game could account for all these options and let you make the hero of the last game who you want.



Actually, he might well work, considering that in cases where a person's six is not specified, it may often be used. Maybe in modern times, people wouldn't use this for fear of coming off as sixist, but I never envisioned people in Tamriel as being all that big on political correctness when it comes to the notion of gender equality, if it has even been concieved by anyone at the time.

You've got that a bit backwards.

It's not like everyone thought the same way and then we had modern times and people got confused and politically correct.

"Political correctness" is a reaction to the modern mindset. Modern refers to the period from the 17th to mid 20th centuries.

The problem with defining the hero that it creates a need for more content. More than Bethesda is willing to create, I bet. If you look at Oblivion, a few books hint that the Nerevarine sided with the corrupted part of the Fighters Guild, which for me was already quite an odd read (e.g. Myth or Menace). Now taking into account gender, race, outlook on the world and the like, and you end up with a lot of different content necessary. I'd rather have anonymous heroes later than predefined when I play the game to be honest. Though this has not much to do with lore. More a case of gameplay and story / lore segregation, I guess.

And likely if there are choices with wildly different outcomes, it get "warped" into one canonical ending anyway .

For the record, if you play the game again be careful at the beginning. Your dialog choices define Revan - if he was male or female, lightside or darkside. This even changes a few situations later in game (e.g. a certain Sith holocron only worked when Revan was male and dark sided, however then Carth didn't appear later).

Positive or negative? My preference is anonymity, so positive. As already said, Bethesda gives us so many gameplay choices that the hero's of previous games must remain anonymous in later games. What hasn't been said though, and opinions may differ on this, but having played Morrowind I know my personal Nerevarine. I have inside knowledge that is unknown to the characters in Oblivion and unknown to historians. This personal Nerevarine or hero becomes my own personal lore. Your experiences will be much different than mine, but not less valid. Your hero, your lore. Maybe I'm just wierd, but I really like this aspect of Elder Scrolls. I've got a wild imagination and Bethesda allows me to let it loose in their world.