First of all, no need to apologize for coming off as a jerk, this is simply an intelligent debate, and neither of us have resorted to insults....yet.
Most of my information comes from a research paper I did for an Environmental Conservation Biology class. The majority of the paper was actually on the reintroduction of the gray wolf into Wisconsin. Most wolves do live in packs nearly constantly, even if it is only two wolves starting a new pack. Occasionally you will have lone wolves, often times alphas who have been for whatever reason kicked out of their pack, who for obvious reasons would stalk smaller prey. Packs are not commonly found in groups as large as 15-20 in the continental united states, but in Alaska, where 90% of government protected land exists, they are not uncommon, and it is strictly for the purposes of taking down prey that is very large and dangerous. However, here in Wisconsin there is a place called Isle Royale, where there are about 3 packs of 5-10 wolves who almost exclusively hunt the moose that live there. This has been documented by tracking as well as aerial surveillence. This is also where I got information concerning wolves attacking elderly or sick moose. It may be less deliberate and simply more chance. As for wolves attacking people... http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-01-14/home-and-garden/17277857_1_wolves-attacks-wolf
Only one was fatal, but that is what we know of. How many missing hikers were actually prey to a large predator, and how many simply broke a leg and starved to death? How many were a combination of the two? And like I said, medieval Europe is a different story. Before industrialization you have much more forest, many more wolves, and let's say a harsh winter killed off 40% of the deer...stuff happens. Wolves did not acquire their (now undeserved) reputation simply for looking scary. In fact, they look exactly like one of man's best friend.
Mountain lions. Unusual to attack people? Yes, but for all the reasons I've mentioned before, such as marginalization and conditioning to humans with guns. There was a case not too many years back of a jogger (no I can't say where, but I think California) who was viciously mauled by a mountain lion. She lived, after her friend beat it away with a stick. After the animal was found and shot, they also discovered another male jogger who had actually been killed. This one lion had developed a habit of hunting humans, because it realized modern joggers are not as dangerous as the pioneer folk who probably killed it's great great great great grandcatty.
I mentioned African lions only as a comparison to show that it's not some innate animal benevolence that keeps them from attacking humans, just odds of success, and a video game mountain lion could certainly be as deadly as a real life African lion.
As for fighting to the death, it's not as if the animal is conscious of its mortality, only how much it's been wounded. A deer will run away at the sight of you. A mountain lion might run away after being hit by a stick, and a bear might run away after being shot (black bears aside, there have been bodies of mauled hunters found with empty rifles or pistols.) The idea is, an animal will not choose to "fight to the death" but simply will not run away from initial resistance, and as a result may die in the attack.
And, not to resort to type, but it is a video game. I'm not saying it should be completely unrealistic, but just as Orcs are in fact fantasy versions of real human cultures (mongols, huns, etc) animals should be fantasy versions of their real world counterparts, and for the sake of excitement, that may mean they are deadlier and more inclined to attack. But that is not to ignore that there are in fact many cases of animals killing people, whether for food or defense. Don't get me wrong, modern cases are often inflated and exaggerated to the detriment of the animals, and I certainly feel like they should be protected rather than exterminated. But I certainly DON'T want animals that are MORE friendly than their real world counterparts. There are ways in game (command creature) if you want to be one with nature, but everyone else should have to sneak or fight their way past.
Well I think for the most part we will have agree to disagree (I hate doing that haha). My sis (who provided me with most of this information and places where I obtained my information has dual degrees in horticulture and conservation. But this entire debate is flawed for a great many reasons: 1. Of each animal talked about there are many species with different behaviors, they also live in different parts of the world and therefore have different habits. 2. Elder Scrolls does take place in a fantasy world and therefore you could never truly argue how a creature should act, a wolf in real life can't be used as a base to judge a fantasy wolf (no matter how similar they may seem). 3. Real hard data and facts are hard to come by due to politics, dated information, or not enough information.
That being said, I can certainly understand many of the objections you have with how I would like to see the next game done. I still do believe that the animals in the game were completely misrepresented in their behaviors. Several of your arguments are still up for debate (such as: whether animals are not conscious of their own mortality, and how wolves gained a negative association, human/animal interaction.) Also if you could provide a link to an article from a reliable source instead of the San Fransisco bay area newspaper, newspapers have printed plenty of false stories before.
I believe the natural thought process and instincts of nearly all animals (lemmings aside) is to survive. So when an animal attacks a creature that it wants to eat but the creature fights back in almost every case the animal will retreat and risk wounds, or death. Also, I believe wolves gained a negative reputation due to their size (much larger than most domesticated dogs), their association with the night (howling at night), the deep growl they can produce, their raw strength and power, as well as the fact that most predatory animals have a negative association due to the fact that they prey on other animals (humans have a natural instinct to fear the unknown as well as fear any possible threat). Also until you know all the details and facts with a missing person you can't really assume anything. Hikers die most often from underestimating the duration of their trip, loosing the trail, hiking related injuries etc.
PLUS there has never been a documented attack by an Orc against a human.
Seriously though, like you said it is a video game... but I would rather have animals act identical to their real life counterparts to create a more believable immersive experience. This would also allow for a hunter style character in order to harvest pelts, teeth, meat, claws, bones, etc.
Well, you should never say never when it comes to an able-bodied wild animal. If attacks are rare from certain species, then they're rare. Not nonexistent. Just about anything heavy and large enough to tackle a man has at least tried to attack man. I saw on TV yesterday (Animal Planet) about animal attack stories; a married couple were out hiking, and were being cornered into a low area by a wolf pack, higher above, and around them. The larger alpha male from the group charged at them, and they successfully ran away. But you could imagine what the intentions were.
Even deer have attacked people. More than once. Cute fuzzy deer.
So it happens. I wouldn't dismiss any of these possibilities.
And this is fantasy, anyway. To present a few minor challenges here and there, everything needs to be hostile. Unless it's an Oblivion deer, who is only passing through the area, looking for Fireball donations.
Yes you are correct, I shouldn't have said never. I just think that the vast majority of misunderstood animals that are used in video games are portrayed in an even more negative light. I also think that it's a shame for those of us that like to immerse ourselves into the game.
By the way, what do you all think of my new magic system idea?
"I would like to a more intuitive magic system.
Magic is supposed to be this dynamic ability in which a person can manipulate an unseen force through the use of certain energies.
Rather than having everyone in the land be able to cast certain spells at level 1 then others at level 2, etc. I suggest magic should be much more energy based and the system should remain invisible.
In my opinion: mages who specialize in a certain kind of magic would have to practice manipulating the energies involved in that magic. So if a aspiring necromancer wants to raise a body they must study among the dead and interact with the dark energies which power their magic. The same goes for druids in the forests, in order to become a good druid you must spend time in the wilderness.
So when the player works with the church and makes pilgrimages they are becoming more proficient at using divine power to their advantage.
In order for higher level casters to benefit from their experience why not make a system where they can specialize (buy) in certain "magical components". These magical components could be (for example) impact, area damage, piercing, wall, explosive, range, accuracy (I dont know i'm kind of throwing these out there as an idea)
So rather than learning "Level 1: Flare" the mage would learn a simple spell similar to flare but pertaining to the energy they study the most. By level 2 they would have points to spend on magical components, so lets say they buy impact and explosive. The spell now has a chance at knocking back opponents as well as exploding causing damage to others nearby. These magical components work to extend how the mage uses the energies to be more effective.
So the mage who ONLY uses fire abilities could eventually walk into a room and cause a massive explosion destroying everything. But if mages want to study more than one form of magic they could do so as well (slightly weaker in each field but more rounded).
Each element of magic (fire, water, wind, divine, undead, etc) would have it's own magical components to spend points into. Also the mage would be able to customize each spell, so if you want to bring up a wall of vines to stop your enemies you can and then another spell that shoots a thorned wooden arrow to pick them off from afar you could.
The system would change the appearance of the spells as you add certain magical components to them.
I feel this would make mages much more unique, as well as making magic a much more immersive and believable experience."