Is Bethesda Nordicist?

[JoezzaHawke]

I think part of the problem is that Imperials are technically more inspired by the Byzantine Romans. Byzantine, while still Roman, presiding during era alongside the rest of Medieval Europe, even as the most powerful nation state around. Of course there was the Carolingian Empire/Holy Romans, but the problem I"m saying exists is that Elder Scrolls basically represents Humans as all belonging in some form of Medieval Imperial trappings. Bretons are the British, obviously, Nords are Scandinavians, but did, indeed, build an Empire, the Imperials are the Romans, and the Redguards are the Caliphate/Persians, basically.

 

In the beginning of Elder Scrolls series, Imperials exist in power during an earlier time of game development. Storylines of video games really didn't pick up until some time in the mid-1990's, but the Empires of Scandinavians, British and maybe even Romans were kind of generic already, as were the Fantasy Tropes that video games built themselves on. So. On one hand, you have the glory of Rome, the Arthurian grandeur of the British, the mighty legacy of the Nordic, and the great warriorship of the Persian/Arabic cultures all being represented by Bethesda.

 

They're going to fail in some way, some how, even if they mostly succeed. So while the Imperials are still awesome along side all the other factions in my opinion, you can pick holes in a franchise like Elder Scrolls even if it's the best.

[lofgren]

In the beginning of Elder Scrolls series, Imperials exist in power during an earlier time of game development. Storylines of video games really didn't pick up until some time in the mid-1990's, but the Empires of Scandinavians, British and maybe even Romans were kind of generic already, as were the Fantasy Tropes that video games built themselves on.

 

This is all the explanation you need, I think. The storylines have been getting steadily more sophisticated, and players have been demanding steadily more complex options.

 

Personally I have always viewed the Imperials as the option for people who like to play as a normal human shoved into a world of magic and sorcery. This is the race for people who roll their eyes at the self-conscious weirdness of Dark Elves. Then at the opposite end of the spectrum you have Argonians for people who want to play as a totally fantastic creature. Hang around a DnD and you'll see long rants about how players should never be allowed to play as anything more alien than an elf because it makes the setting less interesting, and equally passionate rants about how some DM is a jerk for not letting them play their neko/lizard vampire-dragonlich.

 

Anyways, it makes a lot more sense than the half baked conspiracy that the Elder Scrolls is a decades-long plot to expose people to a fringe belief system of a fringe belief system, shrouded in so many layers of fantasy narrative that it is only recognizable to those with just the right balance of paranoia and faith.

 

Also this whole thread is hilarious.

[Jannifer]

A trap that many readers fall into is making assumptions about an author's life, personality or personal beliefs using his/her work as the basis. Many authors write about things which they don't personally believe or support for many and varied reasons, not the least of which is "it makes a good story."

 

I think that it's very easy for a gamer to fall into the same trap when looking at a game. Game developers do things the way they do for many, many reasons, but the primary one for them, as a business, is that they need to make what they believe will sell. Games are fantasy creations; they are fiction. Even if they are rooted in reality/history, they are still fictional constructs. The backbone of reality is necessary to give players a reference point in understanding the game world, but taking that reference point and building a theory around it really makes it into something it isn't.

 

Morrowind and Skyrim both have taken advantage of strong settings and the conflict that arises between an empire and the various peoples it governs. In Morrowind, you have the conflict among the native beliefs of the Dunmer, as represented by the Ashlanders; the Tribunal, as represented by the Temple; and the Imperial divines. In Skyrim, it's the conflict among the native beliefs of the Reachmen, the Nordic beliefs of the Stormcloaks, and the supporters of the Empire. Bethesda has returned to a formula that worked well for them. I think that when it comes right down to it, it's because people make a better story than monsters.

 

So, there's my two-cents worth. Have fun with it. :)

[FegelTemplar]

 

In the beginning of Elder Scrolls series, Imperials exist in power during an earlier time of game development. Storylines of video games really didn't pick up until some time in the mid-1990's, but the Empires of Scandinavians, British and maybe even Romans were kind of generic already, as were the Fantasy Tropes that video games built themselves on.

 

This is all the explanation you need, I think. The storylines have been getting steadily more sophisticated, and players have been demanding steadily more complex options.

 

Personally I have always viewed the Imperials as the option for people who like to play as a normal human shoved into a world of magic and sorcery. This is the race for people who roll their eyes at the self-conscious weirdness of Dark Elves. Then at the opposite end of the spectrum you have Argonians for people who want to play as a totally fantastic creature. Hang around a DnD and you'll see long rants about how players should never be allowed to play as anything more alien than an elf because it makes the setting less interesting, and equally passionate rants about how some DM is a jerk for not letting them play their neko/lizard vampire-dragonlich.

 

Anyways, it makes a lot more sense than the half baked conspiracy that the Elder Scrolls is a decades-long plot to expose people to a fringe belief system of a fringe belief system, shrouded in so many layers of fantasy narrative that it is only recognizable to those with just the right balance of paranoia and faith.

 

Also this whole thread is hilarious.

 

And yet you're placing Nordic people on a higher level of fantasy than Mediterranean people, when you say that Imperials are the "normal human" option.

 

Ask yourself, how did you get to the point of believing that Imperials are less fantasy-like than Nords?

 

Why are Imperials "normal humans" and Nords are more than that? According to some people here it's even supposed to be another way, with Nords being more simple humans and Imperials being closer to the magic world of elves due to their place on the map.

[soupdragon1234]

the Arthurian grandeur of the British, Bretons are the British

Erm, actually they're French, Bretons are real inhabitants of Brittany in north western France, and Bretons in Skyrim all have French names. The Arthurian legend has its roots in celtic legend/myth and was later embellished by the French, Arthur as actually fighting the invading anglo-saxons. The term "British" didn't even exist until the 17th century when the King of Scots declared the now united kingdoms of Scotland and England as "Great Britain". In that grouping of Nords you really ought to place the anglo-saxons in the same group as the Vikings as they shared a similar culture and language, the greatest anglo-saxon surviving literary epic "Beowulf" described events in Scandanavia/Denmark and Hrothgar's Hall (yes Bethesda borrowed the name) situated in southern Sweden. Dragons ultimately derive from anglo-saxon literature too, Vikings only had the Orm as their mythical beast (a kind of giant serpent, a ground crawler, from the same root as "worm")

 

But other than drawing from inspiration such as Imperials are clearly Romans, Nords are clearly anglo-saxon/scandanivians, Redguards are clearly inspired by warriors from the Arab world, people shouldn't really read to much into Bethesda's lore. Its fantasy, plain and simple. I mean, where do Elves fit into this medieval analogy? Clearly they don't, other than originating in mythical beings in germanic mythology (Elves were originally beings of light, Tolkien knew his source material) and commonly occuring in anglo-saxon names (Alfred, (Aelfrede, "elf-wise"), they don't figure at all.

 

People love to imagine and to dig and try and find meaning where originally I'm sure there was none, it is, as I'm sure some people are apt to forget, a video game.

[Moksha8088]

These are hard questions. Is it better to be Nordistic, Meranistic, Khajiitistic or even an Argonianist? At what point does our inquiry brim with humor and at what point does it become absurd? Given that all events take place in land of the Nords, why among the great art in Levelers Tower is there not one picture of The Scream? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

The answer is out there.

[Riprock]

In science, a scientist forms a theory and then he works to prove how it may work and be true. Then he works just as hard to disprove that theory. The only hard work concerning proof of the "Nordicist" theory I can see is a rejection of any viewpoint that does not agree with that theory.

 

In low-brow layman's terms we therefore have a cloud of fart gas.

[FegelTemplar]

In science, a scientist forms a theory and then he works to prove how it may work and be true. Then he works just as hard to disprove that theory. The only hard work concerning proof of the "Nordicist" theory I can see is a rejection of any viewpoint that does not agree with that theory.

 

In low-brow layman's terms we therefore have a cloud of fart gas.

I already made a point about semantics. It's even more true when it's clear you're looking for confrontation, shrugging off the topic at hand and making some poor comparison to a fart. Will ignore any further off-topic comments by you from here on.

Edited January 19, 2015 by FegelTemplar

[Riprock]

Hardly. You do not entertain any view except your own, yet you portrayed yourself as wanting to discuss. You do not wish to discuss. You wish to dictate.

 

My pointing that out is not "semantics". It is an observation based on what you have said. Like your prior "he said/she said" argument, I'm at a loss to explain what you think these things even mean.

 

Semantics is a study or use of meanings and their form. I am not arguing that you mean something different from what you state, or that the difference between what you state and what you mean is minor or major- I am stating that you don't want to listen to anyone's standpoint but your own. Given that observable fact, I can see that coupled with your inability to test your own theory, this entire discussion is a failed premise.

 

You can trot out any linguistic term you like and call it anything you want to. The fact remains that you have your conclusion and you just wish to recite it to an audience.

[notmyhome]

MK's favourite race are the dark elves, as he explicitely stated (I think). Nords were mostly portrayed as about two steps above orcs intelligence-wise. Ever read that book, "Alduin is real"? That they get a little more recognition this time around doesn't make Bethesda some conspiration to infuse young people's minds with ideas of Nordic Supremacy.