0.1.6 WIP/Previews

[Onebitsoul]

No true scotsman defense? To each their own, you may do as you please, but your restrictions I don't find binding to myself.

Here is an example:

During the second era, Cyrodiil was a jungle province. Until Tiber Septim reshaped it into what it is now. In ESO, the place is already like it is in Oblivion after Tiber had changed it.

"To each their own" doesn't matter. Opinions do not matter. The game is lore-breaking in many aspects and none of what's in it should be considered canon.

The whole "Alliance War" has never been mentioned, or two of the alliances, those being Daggerfall Covenant and Ebonheart pact have never been mentioned anywhere else. As far as we know, the only empire during the Interregnum is the one of the Reachmen which later of course was taken over by Tiber Septim who continued to conquer the entire continent. Also, Arenthia is considered Khajiit in ESO even though it's Bosmer as far as I know.

The game is full of these sorts of lore-breaking things. Don't take anything in it as actual lore.

 

[alzhen]

That's not no true scotsman. Its a simple fact; ESO breaks already established lore a lot, and that makes it pretty untrustworthy.

Well it definitely is no true scotsman, Also ESO lore is used in the mod already, one example being the Alliances, and another the inclusion of Durcorach the Black Drake in an unfinished start date, but there it is. Do I agree with everything in ESO? No, but I think fluff that in that book, and others, is no untrustworthy thing as far as lore goes. Also No true scotsman is when faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("Only really the Dunmer own slaves/ "and lore to the Dunmer's practice of slavery, they were likely the only major practicitioners of it"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others. It's excluding a counter example, and I think arbitrarily. You disagree, and that's no bad thing, but it qualifies. The lore in ESO, may be contradicting at times, I stopped playing it, but it wouldn't be the first time since Arena that that has happened

 

[alzhen]

Here is an example:

During the second era, Cyrodiil was a jungle province. Until Tiber Septim reshaped it into what it is now. In ESO, the place is already like it is in Oblivion after Tiber had changed it.

"To each their own" doesn't matter. Opinions do not matter. The game is lore-breaking in many aspects and none of what's in it should be considered canon.

The whole "Alliance War" has never been mentioned, or two of the alliances, those being Daggerfall Covenant and Ebonheart pact have never been mentioned anywhere else. As far as we know, the only empire during the Interregnum is the one of the Reachmen which later of course was taken over by Tiber Septim who continued to conquer the entire continent. Also, Arenthia is considered Khajiit in ESO even though it's Bosmer as far as I know.

The game is full of these sorts of lore-breaking things. Don't take anything in it as actual lore.

I never said there were not plots holes, but that happens in Elder Scrolls Games before ESO, like for example I have a hard time believing EVERYONE forgot how to levitate in Oblivion and Skyrim, still accept it as lore. The jungle in Cyrodiil I think they explain as the mistranslation from a book, Provinces of Tamriel where it says "Cyrodiil is the cradle of Human Imperial high culture on Tamriel. It is the largest region of the continent, and most is endless jungle." and is not mentioned by anyone alive at the time, so I can believe it's just part of the myth of Tiber Septim.

Also "To each their own" apparently does matter since we are disagreeing about the meaning of the same facts. Shall we just keep contradicting each other? We obviously don't agree, but you can't tell me what I accept as lore and what I don't, you can try to persuade me, and I you, but can't dictate how I view a fictional world. Also when the lore does not explain something we have to fill in the holes ourselves, or sometimes we just give weight to different meanings and find some evidence more compelling than others. I don't see it as lore breaking, the explanations seem as reasonable as I expect.

 

[Necal]

No True Scotsman does not apply when the reliability of the source itself is in question.

While it COULD have been appropriate to use that in response to Ezumiyr, though I consider the distinction between slavery and abusive servitude to be a real one even if the latter can be the former in disguise, Onebitsoul was questioning the reliability of your source, not claiming that its part of a different group.

 

[alzhen]

No True Scotsman does not apply when the reliability of the source itself is in question.

While it COULD have been appropriate to use that in response to Ezumiyr, though I consider the distinction between slavery and abusive servitude to be a real one even if the latter can be the former in disguise, Onebitsoul was questioning the reliability of your source, not claiming that its part of a different group.

I know what he meant, I just don't accept that it's an unreliable source, and that makes it no true scotsman from where I'm sitting. ESO doesn't contradict lore any more than other other Elder Scrolls games have. I agree with the distinction between slavery and servitude, my point was I don't it would be much of a stretch based on lore to say more than Dunmer have been involved in the slave trade. The Dwemer enslaving the Falmer, Molag Bal being the Daedric prince of Slavery ect ect. Also one example, I had others too, what weight you place on each is your own affair.

 

[Onebitsoul]

ESO doesn't contradict lore any more than other other Elder Scrolls games have.

Yes it does. I spent around 100 hours playing it, I know.

 

[Necal]

I know what he meant, I just don't accept that it's an unreliable source, and that makes it no true scotsman from where I'm sitting.

Not even slightly. Whether you accept it to be reliable or unreliable does not change the format of his argument. You can claim that his argument is wrong, which is what you're doing, but that does not change the format of his argument. An incorrect argument =/= an informal fallacy.

 

[alzhen]

Not even slightly. Whether you accept it to be reliable or unreliable does not change the format of his argument. You can claim that his argument is wrong, which is what you're doing, but that does not change the format of his argument. An incorrect argument =/= an informal fallacy.

No, as I said No true scotsman is when faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("Only really the Dunmer own slaves/ "and lore to the Dunmer's practice of slavery, they were likely the only major practicitioners of it"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others. In this case it modifies the subject by changing from "Slavery in Elder Scrolls Lore" to Slavery in Elder Scrolls Lore except ESO (because ESO is no true scotsman).

Also you're the one that said "Its a simple fact; ESO breaks already established lore a lot, and that makes it pretty untrustworthy." A separate argument from format to be sure, and I will concede the point that "and that MAKES it no true scotsman" was poorly worded response to "No True Scotsman does not apply when the reliability of the source itself is in question." But you are contradicting yourself abit since you say later say "Whether you accept it to be reliable or unreliable does not change the format of his argument." So does reliability matter, or not, heck your the one that brought up reliability in response to my "no true scotsman" claim? Anyways, not going to continue this argument, I think you are wrong, you think I'm wrong. I can live with that.

 

[alzhen]

Yes it does. I spent around 100 hours playing it, I know.

I played it to during beta, for I don't how many hours, and later after release. It doesn't contradict lore any more than other Elder Scrolls games. Now shall we keep restating our points? Also the fact you played the game 100 hours or doesn't your interpretation of the facts is the correct one. Hahaha, funny part is not addressing any of my arguments besides the ESO source, which was used for one hahaha. Not mention ESO lore is used in the mod itself.

 

[Onebitsoul]

I played it to during beta, for I don't how many hours, and later after release. It doesn't contradict lore any more than other Elder Scrolls games. Now shall we keep restating our points? Also the fact you played the game 100 hours or doesn't your interpretation of the facts is the correct one. Hahaha, funny part is not addressing any of my arguments besides the ESO source, which was used for one hahaha. Not mention ESO lore is used in the mod itself.

I did read everything you wrote and I only responded to the parts about ESO because that is what we're talking about. The reliability of its lore. Hahaha.

How does it matter that lore from the game is used in the mod? That has nothing to do with the fact that it's unreliable. Hahaha.

It does contradict the lore more than the other games, that is a fact.

I don't understand what you mean by the interpretation of a fact. A fact is a fact. One truth and one only. If there are two sides to something, it's a debatable opinion. Not a fact. Facts can't be debated about.

If you have a "different interpretation" of the fact that ESO is a terrible source for lore, your interpretation is simply wrong. Since you've admitted that it is indeed a fact.

"we are disagreeing about the meaning of the same facts" How is this even a thing?

 

[alzhen]

I did read everything you wrote and I only responded to the parts about ESO because that is what we're talking about. The reliability of its lore. Hahaha.

How does it matter that lore from the game is used in the mod? That has nothing to do with the fact that it's unreliable. Hahaha.

It does contradict the lore more than the other games, that is a fact.

I don't understand what you mean by the interpretation of a fact. A fact is a fact. One truth and one only. If there are two sides to something, it's a debatable opinion. Not a fact. Facts can't be debated about.

If you have a "different interpretation" of the fact that ESO is a terrible source for lore, your interpretation is simply wrong. Since you've admitted that it is indeed a fact.

"we are disagreeing about the meaning of the same facts" How is this even a thing?

Hahaha, glad you're in good humor. Still, you are wrong, and I never said the ESO is a terrible source for lore is a fact. No it's not a fact the ESO contradicts the lore more than the other games, it's your opinion about the lore and ESO, just because you say it's a fact repeatedly doesn't make it one, just because you say it's unreliable doesn't make it so. Now the facts we are are disagreeing about the meaning of, well for example Cyrodiil being a jungle. Now it's a fact that this was said at one point, we agree on that, but not what it means. You seem to take to mean that since it's not a jungle in ESO, then ESO is unreliable, I take it to mean that the author of the book wrote about an in-lore legend rather than the literal truth as it must be. Same fact different interpretation what they those facts mean. How is that even a thing, hahahaha, is that a serious question? From political theory, to religion, to history we can agree on the same facts but not what they mean. Facts get their importance from what is made of them in interpretation, and yes that's a thing. I can agree with Christians that the Bible says only their God is real, the bible says that, Christians take that and believe their God is real. I take it to mean someone wrote in a book that their god is real, but doesn't make it true. Same facts, different ways of looking at them. If you can't realize that's a thing, well ok. You not understanding it doesn't make it less true.

 

[Novacat]

Our position on ESO is that we will use that which does not contradict the previous games. The lore that does, we will ignore.

 

[witcher1701]

Hahaha, glad you're in good humor. Still, you are wrong, and I never said the ESO is a terrible source for lore is a fact. No it's not a fact the ESO contradicts the lore more than the other games, it's your opinion about the lore and ESO, just because you say it's a fact repeatedly doesn't make it one, just because you say it's unreliable doesn't make it so. Now the facts we are are disagreeing about the meaning of, well for example Cyrodiil being a jungle. Now it's a fact that this was said at one point, we agree on that, but not what it means. You seem to take to mean that since it's not a jungle in ESO, then ESO is unreliable, I take it to mean that the author of the book wrote about an in-lore legend rather than the literal truth as it must be. Same fact different interpretation what they those facts mean. How is that even a thing, hahahaha, is that a serious question? From political theory, to religion, to history we can agree on the same facts but not what they mean. Facts get their importance from what is made of them in interpretation, and yes that's a thing. I can agree with Christians that the Bible says only their God is real, the bible says that, Christians take that and believe their God is real. I take it to mean someone wrote in a book that their god is real, but doesn't make it true. Same facts, different ways of looking at them. If you can't realize that's a thing, well ok. You not understanding it doesn't make it less true.

That was painful to read.

 

[Onebitsoul]

Still, you are wrong, and I never said the ESO is a terrible source for lore is a fact.

"We are disagreeing about the meaning of same facts" and I am talking about the fact that ESO is a terrible source for lore. I don't know how do you get two meanings out of that.

You're way too deep.

 

[alzhen]

"We are disagreeing about the meaning of same facts" and I am talking about the fact that ESO is a terrible source for lore. I don't know how do you get two meanings out of that.

You're way too deep.

I disagree, but well my second meaning is different from yours and is that it's not a terrible source for lore, same facts different meaning. Anyways as I said we don't agree, and I haven't yet been given reasons to reconsider, and that's fine. I appreciate the arguments you've made none the less, and even if I get the impression you don't really like me and I think your wrong, I do still like you. I like the fact your engaging, and it's actually been fun. Really it doesn't matter in the end, I enjoy the discussion, and I wish you well my friend. I just don't think either of us will gain much more from this argument.

 

[alzhen]

That was painful to read.

I actually remember you from lurking in the forum and I've thought the same thing reading things you said in the past, though I didn't mention it. Also was not talking to you, but que sera sera, the fact it pains you means nothing to me really, but sorry I guess?

 

[alzhen]

Our position on ESO is that we will use that which does not contradict the previous games. The lore that does, we will ignore.

I can respect that view. Seems reasonable.

 

[Onebitsoul]

and even if I get the impression you don't really like me

Don't worry, I like everyone.

 

[alzhen]

Don't worry, I like everyone.

Well then I like you even more, and thank you for the sincere discussion! You're pretty awesome can we at least agree to that? haha

 

[Korbah]

Jungle doesn't just mean the classical "Amazon rainforest" tropical jungles, a jungle is any piece of land covered in dense overgrown foliage. The black forest at one point could've been called a jungle, but it's still in the heart of Europe and made up of your typical European trees. Tiber "waving his hand" and turning it from jungle to fertile valleys can just be taken as land clearances if you want to, something we've done a lot of it in Europe (and the Iberian peninsula is partly a desert because of it, perhaps that is Cyrodiil's future). That said, I vaguely recall something about Cyrodiil being the tropical type of jungle, but I also remember something about Tiber changing Cyrodiil not just in the present, but in the past and future, so to the casual observer it has always been what it is "now".