Lore talk:Hero

Archives
Archive 1: Apr 2007 - Feb 2012
Archive 2: Aug 2012 - Mar 2023

Promotional Images

I figured it was custom here to not use promotional images, but it seems not to be so. Well, my argument against them is that there isn't anything confirming that these are canon depictions. I once looked through every official Bethesda trailer and piece of merchandise containing the promotional Dragonborn I could find and in none of them did it say that he was the LDB. If we are using these images, we may as well change all of the pronouns to he and all of the race mentions to Nord, as this is the race that appears in the trailers. Same goes with HoK being an Imperial and Nerevarine being a Dunmer. Statements from Bethesda specifically about giving player agency to the Heroes and their appearances, names, genders, races, etc. directly contradict the notion that these promotional renders are meant to represent their respective games' heroes. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

OK that's 100% meant to be the LDB lol make no mistake about it, but I'm not a fan of using promotional renders on the main Hero page. I do support them on the individual articles for each hero, put into the gallery section, but on the main hero page I prefer the more vague images of them meant to make the heroes look ambiguous. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If we are using these images, no matter where they are included, the LDB, Nerevarine, and HoK now have confirmed genders and races. There's no way around this and should say enough in and of itself to remove these renders. Mindtrait0r (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any argument for using the prior images over the current ones that really make sense. Arguments that we can infer that the HOK is explicitly Sheogorath based on comments suggesting it is a possibility, and card art with the same name as a quest from Skyrim, but cannot use trailers that were explicitly describing these heroes and depicting them performing some of their most legendary feats/showing their solely unique powers is a bit difficult to square with each other. No attempt to establish anything beyond the usage of these images has been made. In fact, steps were taken to avoid any establishment of canon appearances, names, genders, races, etc. by explicitly mentioning the source of the images. This allows us to make use of higher quality images of the heroes and leaves it up to readers whether or not they accept those depictions.

I wouldn't mind switching over to more vague images intended to be representative of the heroes and moving these images to individual articles like Rim of the Sky said. For example we could use Alduin's wall depiction of the Last Dragonborn. But I don't think the previous images should be used in that case (with the exception of Nerevar's ring). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 16:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Transcribing most of these points from a discussion on the Discord.

In the case of the Last Dragonborn being misconstrued with the Dragonborn shown in the trailer (may refer to him as Trailerborn), at least there is a barebones connection tying them together. They are both Dragonborn. However, in the case of the Oblivion Imperial, he is designed in a vague way that does not evoke any explicit connection to the Hero of Kvatch. He looks like a basic guard. The root of the problem, too, lies in what I just said. Imperial. When looking at this image, I see an Imperial. I immediately notice the race and associate it with the image, and, therefore, the Hero in question.

Race and gender cannot be separated from these images and Heroes if we include them. I vehemently disagree that readers will make that distinction and find it completely antithetical to the purpose of the wiki to include these images, miscontruing promotional trailer renders with the heroes of their respective games. Is anyone claiming that the ESO Nord featured prominently in trailers is The Vestige? The heart of the problem lies there. This assumption that these characters are equivalent is not only original research and unfounded, but also blatantly harmful to the established lore and statements by Bethesda.

Looking at this statement, it is quite clear in proving that these trailer renders are not representative of the Heroes this page incorrectly conflates them with. When asked about whether or not we would ever learn the names of the games' protagonists, Douglass Goodall said This is a needlessly complicated way to avoid "playing favorites" and cheapening the player's experiences. Not related to race or appearance, but name, which could be taken as being a non sequitur to my argument. However, he follows this up with: For all I know, it wasn't my Breton Sorcerer or Khajiiti Assassin that re-assembled the Staff of Chaos and defeated Jagar Tharn, but your... Well... Whatever you played. This is blatant confirmation that races for the Heroes are not confirmed. These trailer appearances have confirmed races and are therefore not the same.

Compiling the evidence, it is contradictory to established policy, misleading to readers (even with an expansion of the current note saying they are non-canon - at that point why include them over the previous canon images? - I digress), and backwards to the purpose of UESP. Mindtrait0r (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Without giving my opinion on the usage of promotional materials being used for player depictions yet as I’m still mulling that over. Mindtraitor, these depictions absolutely, unequivocally represent the player characters from their respective games. This is most explicit for the Ldb above all else but is equally true for Nerevarine and HoK. A very blatant depiction of the Last Dragonborn for example that comes from in game canon works and not marketing material is this card from legends that depicts the events of Skyrim where the ldb uses said shout to call Odahviing. I chose to use the more obscured legends image that also depicts an event from Skyrim in the world eaters eyrie as I knew a more explicit depiction would cause more controversy. But in truth, that’s all anything related with hero related information comes down to, controversy. We dance around things like the Eternal Champion being a male named Talin in licensed materials, the Nerevarine being referred to with male pronouns, and the HoK unequivocally becoming Sheogorath because of the hot topic of player character freedoms. This is just the latest case of that issue, but it feels worthwhile to note that decisions made when it comes to player characters usually spills over more into personal preferences rather than any sort of official policy of the wiki. We don’t have a policy against using marketing depictions in lore space and do it in many instances, and the only reason it’s called into question in this instance is because of what these marketing materials are depicting, player characters. Dcking20 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) As I called attention to in my above reply, these cards most certainly do not unequivocally represent the player characters from their respective games. The Oblivion trailer character looks like a basic guard and the Morrowind Dunmer is just that, some random Dunmer. My stance on the LDB being Trailerborn is the same, though less obvious at a glance. I'll reiterate from the Discord here in that the Trailerborn's purpose is to introduce the powers of those who are Dragonborn, as the lore surrounding them was invented for Skyrim. Notice in the narration that Esbern mentions the prophecies tell of a Dragonborn. Trailerborn is never called the Last Dragonborn in any merchandise, dev statements, or promotional material that I have found. He may not even be a canon character, merely acting as an icon/avatar to represent what it means to be Dragonborn, which is delving into Original Research to fully purpose but is useful for my claim that this is just a representation of Skyrim used for marketing, exactly what the trailer needed. The dev statements I brought up that have yet to be refuted are confirmation of this; trailer characters cannot be canon depictions of the Heroes if company policy is to avoid exactly that.

All of that said, I am neutral on the Call Dragon card. There are differences, such as the red dragon not having the blue that Odahviing does, but the name of the card implies that this is indeed Odahviing. I think the inference that this is depicting the LDB is within the realm of reasonable, but I make no move to change the image myself as I could understand someone wanting the other, more concrete one. Abstain. Mindtrait0r (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no question these promo depictions represent the HoK/LDB. It should be obvious that the Dragonborn depicted in the Skyrim trailer is the player. The question is whether we want promotional depictions in lorespace. Personally I'm fine with it. I think they're a better representation than a photo of Fourth Era Sheogorath, or artwork of the LDB's gauntlets. —⁠Legoless (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a little frustrating that I have given evidence that these depictions aren't canon depictions of these characters but have been told multiple times that they are obviously the same without any of my evidence being refuted. I understand that the fact that a Dragonborn being plastered all over Skyrim's promotional material where you play as a Dragonborn paints a certain picture, but the Bethesda statement just would not work if these characters were meant to be taken as representative of their respective games' heroes. If someone could find an instance where these characters are called by their given Prisoner names (Last Dragonborn, Hero of Kvatch, Nerevarine, Champion of Cyrodiil, or even just TES # Protaganist), that would clear any doubt up and I would happily swallow my words. But the seemingly deliberate avoidance of these titles and the statements made by Bethesda to avoid canonizing race do not give me the 'obviously the same' view that y'all have. Mindtrait0r (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

To piggyback off of what Legoless last said, the Nerevarines depiction is also quite explicit, it’s used in the same kind of context as the other pcs other than the cinematic action style trailer which Tes 3 didn’t have. Bgs has honored the depiction though as can be seen in our General:Twitter Archive, with two of the commissioned art pieces for tes 3 anniversary featuring the same general style of Dunmer, with spiked black hair and bonemold armor, even going as far as to depict them with Trueflame in the 20th anniversary piece. Also mindtraitor, your frustration aside I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that these depictions don’t represent exactly what they so clearly appear to. Dcking20 (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately something that explicit would require us to break into Bethesda HQ and steal their exact notes from the development of the trailers. Personally, if we were to plan such a heist, I would have some other questions in mind to answer first!

I don't think that forcing the standard for acceptance to be them explicitly showing a picture of the hero with text or narration that says "This is the Last Dragonborn" is reasonable. The phrase "The Last Dragonborn" is used all of four times in Skyrim in reference to the hero of the game as far as I can tell. The hero of Skyrim is primarily referred to as either "Dovahkiin" or "Dragonborn" in the game and supporting media. Notably, the trailer in question uses both of these names while zooming in on the hero (a common video technique to indicate that this is the person they are referring to in question), who then demonstrates their ability to use Dragon Shouts and consume the souls of dragons, abilities unique to the Dragonborn in this time of the setting. The Oblivion trailer similarly states that the fate of the world rests in the hand of one individual, before cutting to and zooming in on the hero in question. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that these cinematic choices are grounds enough for labeling these appearances (and therefore races and genders; there is no way around this) as canon. But it is seeming more and more like I am just being outvoted, which, while this whole thing is still incredibly unsatisfying and still antithetical to everything the wiki is about, I must admit is probably the end. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to what these characters portray, it is clear that they're meant to be the Heroes. If you can't find proof, you just need to dig a little deeper; the dragonborn in the trailer is confirmed as the Last Dragonborn through merch such as the Pop! Dovahkiin description directly calling him that, or the Dragonborn Shoulder Plate Necklace being based off the LDB's armor from the trailers.

The wiki displaying these pictures doesn't automatically deem "these photos are the canon depiction". That's not at all what's trying to be done here. These promotional pictures have always been meant as default stand-ins for what the Heroes look like. Its just one of their many possible depictions, and they can look like anything, these pictures just give us something to go off versus nothing. I just want to make that clear: that these depictions are one of many valid depictions, they are not the only depictions, and putting them on the wiki does not mean we are deeming the latter statement to be true. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There's also the Dragonborn Helmet from Team Fortress 2. It is accepted in popular culture as fact that the Dragonborn in iron armor represents Skyrim's player character. Whether or not the depiction is "canon" is a different question. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) I don't understand. This isn't exactly unofficial lore, how could depictions be noncanon? And thank you Rim, that's exactly what I've been looking for. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries!

As for "canon" status, I think it fits into the same category as radiant NPCs. If we have a picture of Krev the Skinner showing it as a Nord male, its perfectly valid and would be accurate. If also had a picture of Krev as a Khajiit female, it would also be equally valid, as Krev has an equal chance of being either. These are true legitimate depictions of Krev, but they are not the only depictions. Same case as the heroes; any depiction of them is valid, but that doesn't mean that's the only appearance they can have, so these promo pics aren't hard canon "this is how the hero should look". At least, that's my understanding of it, Legoless can probably elaborate. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

But in Krev's case, we see the multiple appearances. We only see these characters as one thing. How can we extrapolate, then, that they must be some kind of loose, representative-but-not-exact avatars? Why even include the images if they're practically saying "This is one look that this character could have"? That seems super unhelpful and goes back to what I've been insisting, that these changes will only go to confuse people. Mindtrait0r (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would counter this by saying that the gauntlets depicted on the World-Eater's Eyrie card is also only one potential depiction of what the Last Dragonborn could look like. My player character may have worn different gloves during that quest, while still being an equally valid depiction. This line of thinking is actually why this page had no imagery up until recently. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The wiki has consistently defended the Nerevarine's gender being male per Neloth's pronoun usage in Skyrim, even in spite of Michael Kirkbride's unofficial comment that it was a typo. What if my Nerevarine was female? This tells me that the wiki accepts canonized appearances over player agency. Mindtrait0r (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What we include about a player character in lorespace depends on editor consensus. It seems like most people here are in agreement with the images used on this page. If we can't achieve a consensus on their inclusion, I'm fine with removing some or all of the imagery from the page instead. Personally I can't see why we should favour World-Eater's Eyrie over official artwork such as the TESV game trailer or the Young Dragonborn card. —⁠Legoless (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) I maintain that if images are to remain, genders/races reflected within them are to be taken as official. I agree with Legoless that pictures should be taken off if they aren't going to be reverted to the pre-trailer state, though it would admittedly be weird if Cyrus and Talym Rend, for instance, did not have pictures, despite their names and appearances being incontrovertible. — Unsigned comment by Mindtrait0r (talk • contribs) at 16:08 on 15 May 2023

"I maintain that if images are to remain, genders/races reflected within them are to be taken as official." Once again, I do not believe one thing equals the other, putting these images on here doesn't imply that. Personally, I do not want promo renders on the page as main images but I do support them as being put into galleries. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I hearken back to my previous statement, "But in Krev's case, we see the multiple appearances. We only see these characters as one thing. How can we extrapolate, then, that they must be some kind of loose, representative-but-not-exact avatars? Why even include the images if they're practically saying "This is one look that this character could have"? That seems super unhelpful and goes back to what I've been insisting, that these changes will only go to confuse people." If the argument is that the trailer came before the games, and that the games having customizable appearance overrides the previous trailer appearance, then surely the Funko Pop that came after the game's release takes precedence. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ordering

As this is a lore article, would it not make more sense for the list of heroes to occur in chronological order of when they first appear as opposed to the release order of their respective games? --Rezalon (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal either way, I could accept any of the three natural organizations, alphabetical, lore chronology, and release chronology. I lean toward release chronology though since you have some Heroes who span several years: the Eternal Champion, the Agent, the Forgotten Hero, and the Sheathed Blades, and some Heroes whose timeline is unclear: Talym Rend, the Hero of Dawnstar, and the Master Tunnel Rat. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Artistic Depictions

Making this separate from the prior discussion since that one was about depictions specifically from promotion and the arguments for and against were related to the nature of their material being trailers, covers, etc. With the recent transclusions pushing for individual articles for the Heroes (something I am 100% in support of) I think it is good to bring up, yet again, what it means for a Hero do be depicted artistically. Except in these new cases, it isn't about promotion. For the Hero of Kvatch in particular, we have the Bethesda Twitter Archive posting official artwork made for the 25th Anniversary of TES which put a face, body, and general race (Man) to the HoK. I no longer have the argument of "This isn't actually depicting the Hero" since the alt-text for the images namedrop HoK.

In previous discussion, even though it was generally agreed that the trailer depictions were of the Heroes, it was never - in my opinion - explained why the gender and general race of these characters weren't being taken as canon. With these very official pieces, seemingly made or comissioned by Bethesda themselves for the anniversary, depicting the HoK a specific way, I believe we should adjust his lorepage's infobox accordingly. Furthermore, I believe the same standard should be applied to the Nerevarine and LDB, who also have artwork of them, though in their case there isn't any alt-text - something the trailers lacked too, but general consensus from before indicates that isn't a requirement. Mindtrait0r (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The Free Will of Heroes of Prophecy

I think the relationship that Heroes have with fate is a bit murky. Sotha Sil, Dyus, and Ithelia push the narrative that Heroes can choose between endless possibilities and aren't bound by causality or logic. But the prophecies of the Nerevarine and the Dragonborn show the Heroes as prophesied about long ago. Ironically, they seem uniquely bound by fate due to their prophecies. To me, the lore is describing the fact that they are games. The prophecies are the main quests written by Bethesda, the unbound nature of the heroes being because we can play the game however we want, and the bound nature of everyone else being because they are NPC's. Similar to how CHIM is just the lore describing Console Commands. But in-universe, it seems that the explanation is that the Hero is destined to follow the prophecies but free to choose how? As in the Last Dragonborn could be a Nord warrior with an iron helmet, a Breton knight, a Wood Elf thief, or a Khajiit mage, but regardless they will defeat Alduin? Or is it more accurate to say that the Hero only fulfills their prophecy because they wish to, the same way we as players only complete the quests in-game because we choose to?

In other words, how do the Heroes have a special prophesied fate while also being free to choose their own destiny? Are they bound in their quest but free outside of it? The line on this page saying "Heroes are closely related to the prophecies revealed in the Elder Scrolls, but are not bound by them" kind of makes prophecies irrelevant, no? BananaKing5 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it looks like the answer may lie in the following lines. In The Nine Coruscations, "endless possibility … rewritten narratives … even the Elder Scrolls … always there is born a Prisoner Unbound … as is the will of the Prime", and in Divining the Elder Scrolls, "the prophet who reads the scroll sees one version of what might be. Another prophet might have a different vision with equal veracity". Since the prophecies in the Elder Scrolls are not absolute, as their lore page says, then it would make sense that the prophecies don't bind the Heroes in destiny and instead just describe what they will choose to do. Like a window through time stating the future more than an unbreakable fate. Perhaps the Nerevarine Prophecy, put in place by Azura the Prince of Prophecy, follows the same logic. Maybe prophecies bind others (nobody will achieve divinity through the Heart of Lorkhan again, Nerevar will return), but only "observe" Heroes (the prophecy doesn't detail how the Nerevarine will do anything, just what he will do and what will happen to him). This explanation seems to harmonize the special fates of Heroes with their ability to choose their own destiny. Thoughts? BananaKing5 (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Generic he

There appears to be a misconception recently that because a Hero is referred to by male pronouns at any point, even once, it somehow confirms that they are without a doubt a man, and a trend has been going on around the wiki that presents this the indisputable truth. This is incredibly inaccurate and most often derived from sources that make no direct statement about the hero's identity outside of the pronouns.

The majority of instances where the supposed confirmation of male gender occur are simply cases of Generic he, where singular male pronouns were used for sake of simplicity. This has historically been intended to be gender-neutral and derives of the concept of "Male as a norm", where male pronouns are simply the default, and in the modern day has slowly fallen out of use as it obviously "brings a male image to mind", even if it is not intended to. Anyone saying "the usage of male pronouns confirms a male gender" has forgotten the context that the generic he held just years ago, and it in fact does not confirm a male gender. The usage of generic he is a concept rooted in sexism, hence why it has recently been discontinued. I know that most of us (basically anyone born before 2010) were aware that "singular they" pronouns were not as common in use as they are now, and when referring to something of indeterminate gender, people would often use their own pronouns to refer to it (i.e. a woman would refer to a cat as a "she" and a man would refer to it as a "he", even though neither knows its actual gender, it is just a neutral placeholder); most Bethesda writers are male and naturally they used their own pronouns in this context when referring to the heroes and were not actually confirming a gender, it is not deeper than that. It was only around the end of 2021 that Zenimax even regularly used singular they/them pronouns in any content (i.e. Gazmod and Frii) to reflect the modern opinion. Therefore, I propose that any usage of male pronouns to refer to the Heroes prior to 2022 be deemed instances of the Generic he and not a valid confirmation of gender.

Heroes are by their nature meant to be ambiguous in every way. It is a key component to their unique status and meant to show how every player's experience is equally valid. Even the Nerevarine Prophecy, referring to the Hero with the Generic he, talks about how everything about them is uncertain. Only heroes with confirmed singular identities like the Eternal Champion, Cyrus, and Talym should have their gender listed as male. The wiki "confirming" their gender on a misinterpreted technicality is invalidating of players' experiences.

The stance of using Generic he to "confirm" Heroes as males is blatantly wrong and has very sexist undertones, and I do not support the wiki continuing sentiment this under the guise of a technicality. The related heroes should be placed under ambiguous gender status, and I hope that we can all put this into place. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe it's also worth noting that developers said that Neloth using "he" to refer to the Nerevarine was a mistake. The ambiguity of the Prisoner's origins, including their gender, is very much a key part of the whole concept of the Prisoner.Tyrvarion (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As the person who has written the vast majority of the recent story additions to the Last Dragonborn and Nerevarine articles, I have used "he" for both of them, due in large part to these technicalities such as Odahviing's Legends card saying "he" for the Dragonborn. However, I agree that the generic "he" is almost certainly being used, or at least won't argue against it, considering Bethesda has gone out of its way to try and portray the heroes as whoever the player wishes them to be. The only point of contention is that the art released by the Bethesda Twitter account even less than a month ago, such as the picture in the 30th Anniversary tweet, shows heroes like the Hero of Kvatch, the Last Dragonborn, and the Nerevarine as male. However I don't think this should undermine Bethesda's attempts to leave the Hero's identity as undefined, and I don't think the art is trying to define canon. By the time I get around to the Bloodmoon quests for the Nerevarine and eventually everything for the Hero of Kvatch, I'll (re)write each of the articles using whatever consensus we arrive at. BananaKing5 (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I very much agree we shouldn't "canonize" any genders of heroes we can customize (i.e: most besides Cyrus and some Legends ones). Even the ones of heroes we know have an admittedly male-sounding name such as Talin we should put the gender as unknown. We know it's Bethesda policy to avoid canonizing these things, there's a note on Lore:Talin page about this even. It's against player-choice and yes, whilst not blatantly sexist IMO, I do think that the few people that vehemently defend "Nerevarine is a dude" aren't doing it for the sake of wiki accuracy. CoolBlast3 (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Generic he is indeed a feature of the English language, but it only works when referring to an unspecified person. Regardless of whether it was a mistake or not, Neloth referring to the Nerevarine as a 'he' is confirmation enough for me. Neloth is a primary source; he met the person in question. If the consensus here changes to remove the Nerevarine's gender, I think it's still important to note in some form.

I reject the idea that we shouldn't "canonise" anything about the heroes. We are doing no such thing. The purpose of this page and the individual Hero pages is to document as much in-universe info as possible about the player characters, and it's not our fault Bethesda's writers slipped up on this one. None of these pages would be able to exist if we don't accept that basic premise. —⁠Legoless (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

How about we just say something along the lines of "unknown (depicted as male)" or "unknown (described as male)"? Or some larger note in their pages explaining the different stances on their gender? This seems like a fair middle ground between Bethesda statements about player agency, and "slip ups", quotes, and artwork that document the heroes as male, generic "he" or otherwise. It would include all of the in-universe information while also including Bethesda's intention of "the player chooses who the heroes are". BananaKing5 (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This approach with an additional note would most likely be perfect - there would be no assumptions on our side and also there would be not obscuring the information from the readers.Tyrvarion (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Nerevarine and Talin arguments are separate than say, the Last Dragonborn page which from what I can tell really could be a case of generic he. Neloth is someone who is aware of the Nerevarine personally so his usage of he is the basis for the male pronouns. Similarly with Talin, the manual source that gives his background describes him as a male. Dcking20 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(←) I strongly oppose this. If we start playing hesitance with characters referred to with he him or his, easily 80% of the pages currently marked Male in the gender box would be changed. Do we need a direct reference to a character's genitalia for them to have a gender listed? Are the terms man or woman enough? Furthermore, generic she is a thing, albeit rare, meaning even more pages would have to be changed. I further disagree with the possible counterargument that this should only be used for Heroes. There's no reason they should have a different policy than all other Lore-People pages. Cyrus stands as proof that Heroes are just characters, the only difference is we can choose what they look like most of the time. But that doesn't change the fact that almost every Hero has details about them that are canon, such as the LDB being born in the Fourth Era, or Talin's name, or the Agent working for the Blades. Dcking has the right of it in that LDB is the only questionable one here since it is coming from an external description rather than a character speaking from memory, like Talin, Agent, and Nerevarine have. Even still, I don't think LDB's should be changed. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You are completely misinterpreting my suggestion, this is not going to affect "80% of pages" as it is specifically for heroes due to their player-determined and lore ambiguous nature, and the rest of your opening response is blowing things way out of proportion. Cyrus and Talym are unique cases as they start off with one established identity with race/gender, and the Eternal Champion's name and gender were established before Bethesda put in a policy of making heroes ambiguous so as to not play favorites: they are very obvious exceptions. As for Neloth's brief recounting of the Nerevarine (literally one sentence), guys, do we really expect Bethesda to use singular they/them pronouns back in 2012? They were very uncommon back in that time period, and its silly to think they would have gone out of their way to use them a dozen years ago when doing so was rare. As I stated before, while generic she is also a thing it was not used because... the majority of Bethesda writers are male, and at the time used Male as a norm. Besides, Neloth says "He" once and it could very easily be a typo and error, it should not be taken at face-value. And as others have stated before, the LDB Legends card lore is a tertiary source at best, the social media team that wrote it mistakenly used the term "Dragon Crisis" too after reading the name of the (then-named) Dragon Crisis article on TES Wiki despite that term appearing nowhere in TES beforehand; the source is not very reliable and should not take precedence over LDB's ambiguousness in dozens of other instances.

As others have suggested, any contradictions to the ambiguousness of protagonist gender should be kept as a note and not as a direct statement.

Overall, the instances where Heroes are referred to by male pronouns are overall very brief and too flimsy to make a direct conclusion. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't get the persistence here. We've word of god from BGS that they avoid canonizing hero genders post Talin. From the...discussions this topic has had over the years, I truly think it's not about "wiki accuracy" but making Heroes be dudebros. If BGS came out and said "Oh the Dragonborn is non-binary" bet your ass people here would immediately be going "noo, Heroes are unknown gender". Genuinely kinda irky at this point. UESP should not be invalidating player choice on basis of a single "he". Especially when again, BGS has stated they don't want those things in stone. We shouldn't ignore the "he" either, but it should be as a note on the respective page. See the note on Fa-Nuit-Hen for a good example of this. CoolBlast3 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(I wrote this before the most recent bit of discussion, so this is mostly answering Dcking20 instead of the newer stuff. I still think the main point is relevant though)

For the Nerevarine, if Neloth's dialogue is the main basis for using male pronouns, then there are a couple issues. First, while that line cannot be wholly dismissed (hence the "unknown (described as male)" idea above), it has been admitted by Bethesda to be a mistake and akin to a glitch. Using this quote alone, despite Bethesda's intentions, as an indicator of the Nerevarine's gender would be a bit disingenuous of us when documenting the lore of Bethesda's franchise. I think the main reason it can't be ignored entirely (besides the fact that it does occur in-game, but I mean ignored as a lore statement) is because the artwork of the Nerevarine corroborates that Bethesda markets the Nerevarine as male by default. I think saying the Nerevarine's gender is unknown but depicted as male is most accurate to how Bethesda wishes the character to be.

Second, Morrowind itself provides the avenue for the Nerevarine to be a woman. Mistress Dratha even says "Nerevar returns... as a woman!", directly to the Nerevarine, if you play as a female and an archmagister of House Telvanni. Since we don't take this (admittedly conditional) line of dialogue to have any weight at all, I think it is fair to say we can't take Neloth's dialogue to have so much weight as to be the main basis for male pronouns. Especially since this line isn't mandatory and is conditional on the player asking him about Morrowind. I would again argue that the Nerevarine is meant to be without a given gender, but is notably depicted/described as male.

Also, on top of everything I said about why I think "unknown (depicted/described as male)" is the most accurate description for at least the Nerevarine, I think it is also the safest choice for the heroes in general except for those like Talym Rend, Cyrus, and possibly Talin. As has been evident in this Discussion tab, the canonical genders and races of the heroes have been discussed without conclusion for a very long time. A lot of people take a stance on the matter that "the game says it, the art shows it, the characters are male". A lot of other people take a stance of "Bethesda said the player chooses, so all options of who the hero is are equally canon". Without Bethesda deliberately putting a definitive answer in the games, which it likely won't, consensus can't be reached. So mentioning both stances is fair to both sides, and shares the most amount of information to a reader of UESP. BananaKing5 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it should be listed as "Unknown" with "(depicted/described as male)" put into the note as to not clog the infobox. As for promotional artwork, those depictions are used merely for consistency/convenience in marketing, they depict one possible rendition of the hero, but that doesn't mean other renditions can exist. We see this a ton for ESO, in many trailers and screenshots the "Vestige" shows up but the depictions vary widely from Male Redguard, to Female Khajiit, etc. so its clear that ambiguity is intended. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

What word of god are you talking about? I found this excerpt from Douglas Goodall which may be it?

"As far as I know, they will always be nameless. This is a needlessly complicated way to avoid "playing favorites" and cheapening the player's experiences. For all I know, it wasn't my Breton Sorcerer or Khajiiti Assassin that re-assembled the Staff of Chaos and defeated Jagar Tharn, but your... Well... Whatever you played."

This isn't some hard policy, this is a general rule of thumb. Notice the "As far as I know" and inclusion of the Eternal Champion as "nameless" despite canonically being Talin. A general rule of thumb which, as is evident by this very discussion's existence, has exceptions. Not to mention this rule of thumb doesn't deal in appearance, gender, backstory, anything like that. It only has to do with names. There are other sources which refer to Nerevarine as male, such as The Riddle of the Incarnate, Impartially Considered - which is not called a glitch by any ex-devs who didn't work on the game it was mentioned in. Mindtrait0r (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Codex you are citing quotes the Morrowind Introduction scene "ignorant of the role he was to play in that nation’s history...", which uses the Generic he. Right after the intro scene plays, you get to make your character and can pick them to be a woman. Evidently, the intro scene is just using "he" for convenience and once again, not confirming a gender. It wouldn't make sense for it to call you a man and then let you be a woman anyways, and its pretty absurd to say that playing as a woman would suddenly invalidate and contradict the Prophecy. I don't know why anyone is so adamantly opposed that the Nerevarine could be a girl. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(←) The narration is reading the book. The narration is authoritatively from the future since it says "waning years of the Third Era". It's reading the book, which was written after the Nerevarine did everything. It reads like a biography, an excerpt of a book which told of the Nerevarine's tales. A similar book is Life and Times of the Nerevarine by Hasphat Antabolis who knew the Nerevarine. If a book can be written about someone, they must have their details known in-universe, thus Neloth's line and the Riddle's mention of "he" are valid. I'm not adamantly opposed to the possibility of a female Nerevarine, I'm adamantly opposed to the wiki not documenting what information we have at face-value. "Unknown (depicted as male)" is uselessly complicated and goes against everything we know. Yes, there is a general rule of thumb policy to avoid naming Heroes, so as to appeal to player choice (due to your lack of statement otherwise I'm guessing the source I provided was indeed the rule of god you referred to), but these are in-universe characters and we should document them like any others. Like Legoless said, sometimes details slip through the cracks. We should be displaying what we know instead of clinging to the idea of player choice in spite of all the evidence otherwise. Mindtrait0r (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe "Unknown (depicted as male)" is as fair and simple as this discussion can be. I don't think there is enough definitive evidence to confirm the Nerevarine as a man. Neloth's dialogue of the Nerevarine being a man should not be any more valid than Mistress Dratha's dialogue of the Nerevarine being a woman. It appears the prophecy saying "he" is almost the textbook definition of the generic "he". Hercurnian Baeboris, the character who wrote the Riddle, is also a completely unknown character. There is no evidence this character is writing on definitive knowledge he himself knows, or if he is writing off of rumors he has heard, or if he was a blathering fool in-universe that happened to get the Emperor sending the Nerevarine to Morrowind correct. Based on the amount of books contradictory to the lore and the concept of the unreliable narrator prevalent in the Elder Scrolls, calling on Hercurnian cannot be taken as definitive. The Life and Times of the Nerevarine are also completely unknown. We don't know what the book says, or if Hasphat was at all truthful. In all, I think the evidence pointing to the Nerevarine as a man is incredibly weak and requires a lot of logical concessions. Based on the fact that the policy of player choice was stated by Goodall (with race explicitly mentioned in Breton sorcerer vs Khajiiti assassin and gender implicitly mention in "whatever you played"), and upheld by Bethesda over the last 30 years, the idea that the Nerevarine's gender is unknown (unknown to us, not in-universe characters) seems like the more appropriate option. I feel it would be disingenuous not to document Bethesda's intent. However, I will admit the evidence supporting the Nerevarine being a man is not nonexistent. Adding "depicted as male" or some other similar note, displays what we know, as MindTrait0r and Legoless mention. The various details that have fallen through the cracks, and all official art of the Nerevarine, depict the character as male. But since these were either accidents in the case of slip ups, or promotional marketing with no bearing on lore canonicity in the case of art, I don't think they should be used to definitively ignore what Bethesda intended. Thus, "Unknown (depicted as male)", however that note is written, is the most accurate and informative option. All information on the character being a male is documented by the note(s), but the intent of Bethesda is also considered. "Male" ignores intent. "Unknown" hides information. "Unknown/Male" provides a false equivalence between intent and error. "Unknown (Depicted/Described as male)" calls forward the intent of Bethesda, while also including the official art and everything we "know".

On a broader scale, related to this discussion but mainly beyond it, I reject the idea of using known accidents from Bethesda to justify lore. I don't think it makes any sense to claim something as lore that Bethesda definitively rejects or retcons. If we don't listen to Bethesda on what lore is, then what is the point of trying to document their lore in the first place? Keeping original dialogue with a sic tag is one thing. Making notes is also okay, for example the Commentaries on the Mysterium Xarxes correlating Daedric Princes to the wrong planes, or the many books and quotes on the dubious relationship between Akatosh and Alduin, since these are intentional. But if, for instance, a character were to incorrectly claim that the Lilmothiit were the Bird-Men that Topal the Pilot met, I don't think this should be documented outside of a sic tag on the dialogue. Using known errors to try and justify lore is illogical and only adds to confusion, not clarity. BananaKing5 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Very well said, BananaKing, you make a lot of great points and suggestions. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of letting other people make their statements on this topic, this'll probably be my last post. When you say "upheld by Bethesda over the last 30 years", what exactly do you mean by that? You see a policy that has been faithfully upheld, I see a loose rule of thumb which has had dozens of exceptions. Furthmore, Riddle being prone to unreliable narration is irrelevant. Every book in TES is subject to such scrutiny. Are we to remove Kyrnil Long-Nose's gender because Great Harbingers wasn't written by someone who knew him personally? Bashomon's because no author who reported him was on the Far East Fleet? Haromir's because the Song of Pelinal v3 dates to the Second Era? What info we do have takes precedent over it possibly being inaccurate, this is the basis of documentation on the wiki. Furthermore, Dratha's dialogue isn't anywhere near canon of any kind. There's conditional pronouns and dialogue all over the games. We don't say LDB is Altmer because being so gives you a unique possibility in Diplomatic Immunity, nor do we say he's male or female because certain letters will refer to them as either respective option depending on what you pick. Dratha also has alternative dialogue for men: "Of course, I expected nothing less from a man."

I have an issue with this insistence on intent vs. what we see in the games. What is being suggested is that we ignore the pronouns provided for characters because they can be contradicted by character creation. But all over the wiki we have precedent for the intent of a message being less meaningful than what we get in the end result, in-game. It was the intention of Michael Kirkbride that The Song of Pelinal, v 8 revealed the Godhead and its Madness, split personalities. But since this is impossible to glean from the text itself, we don't consider all that canon (Godhead is referencing canonically in other aspects, but this instance isn't). This is what's happening here. There's a general rule of thumb in Bethesda's writing team to avoid canonizing details about Heroes, but that intention isn't always represented within the final material. Mindtrait0r (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant that Bethesda has upheld Goodall's rule in terms of not releasing anything on character identities on purpose. Despite all the marketing of the various heroes, they have never claimed that any of the heroes were definitively one race or gender. The Nerevarine is depicted as a male Dunmer, and the Last Dragonborn is shown as a male Nord, but besides depictions, the heroes have never been described. Goodall in 2005 and Kirkbride in 2012 upheld that this was on purpose by rejecting identification of the heroes. The fact that information on these famous heroes has to be in places like an accidental line of dialogue, an obscure and ambiguous codex entry, and an indirect reference in the lore of a Legends card, tells me that Bethesda is trying to honor the ambiguity of the characters. I don't mean to say that the depictions and slip ups should be entirely ignored, but I do think that those are not meant to be taken as lore statements from Bethesda.

As for the rest of everything, I think there is a difference between player characters and lore characters. Lore characters like Kyrnil Long-Nose have their stories written by Bethesda, while player characters have their stories written by us. Ignoring lore books on characters (except when the games contradict it) is illogical, as you point out. But the argument is that as playable characters, we decide their stories, so by that very nature the games will contradict books about them. The intent of Kirkbride on the Song of Pelinal may be ignored (though I'm not sure why a UOL note couldn't be added in the Song of Pelinal article) because of how inconsequential and unrelated that is to the rest of the lore. All official lore on the Godhead is already from rather esoteric sources like the Commentaries on the Mysterium Xarxes, the 37th of the 36 Lessons of Vivec, and the Black Books, and they all just barely mention its existence. The rest of what we know about the Godhead is built on unofficial lore. At some point, following Kirkbride's intent is just following him blindly despite no official lore hinting to what he says. Meanwhile, ignoring the intent of Bethesda on the character identities is much closer to fans' hearts as well as much more of a denial of intent. Ignoring Bethesda's intent here is to say that the company can't really retcon basic parts of its own lore, even if the original instance was an accident. Ignoring Kirkbride's intent is different in that it is essentially just him out there in those bubbles. Sometimes Bethesda adopts his writings and sometimes they don't. I doubt anyone at Bethesda now would agree that the Song of Pelinal Vol. 8 was meant to be about the Godhead's madness instead of Pelinal being at St. Alessia's deathbed. Even though Kirkbride was the one that actually wrote it, his intent about the madness of the Godhead was not why it's in the game. As for Dratha, we agree. My point wasn't that she provides evidence for a female Nerevarine, my point is that her dialogue should be discarded as having no bearing on the actual canon gender of the Nerevarine. Where we differ is that I then propose that Neloth's accidental dialogue should be treated the same way. Whereas Neloth's dialogue is indeed more authoritative since it is about the Nerevarine as a character and is not to the player, I think it loses that authority since the "he" in that line was a mistake anyway.

About the intent vs final material thing again, I think it is important to look at the context of the situation. In the case of Kirkbride, whether we accept his lore or not doesn't change much, and in fact accepting it often makes TES less coherent (but sometimes more interesting). Was Dagon the Leaper Demon King transformed by Alduin? Who knows, but it seems Bethesda is going down the Magna Ge Weapon route. Was Pelinal a cyborg or just the Divine Crusader? Cyborg Pelinal was Kirkbride's intention, but it doesn't make a huge difference if he was or wasn't one. Though, in this instance, it contradicts us seeing Pelinal as a ghost in-game. So depending on the context (especially when it comes to Kirkbride), intent just puts a different lens on the lore rather than making any monumental changes, so it is pretty inconsequential to accept or reject that lens on a personal level. I personally think Kirkbride's more peculiar bits of lore belongs in the notes section of articles more so than the bodies of them, and it appears for the most part his lore is found in the notes sections more than anything. Meanwhile Bethesda intends for the player to feel like they have a say in the world they created. Letting that happen is, to me, vastly more important than some random slip up or obscure codex entry that might invalidate it. BananaKing5 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what this discussion is about and barely care. I made the gender edit on Lore:Nerevarine upon request on behalf of another editor, had no idea there was a debate over it. Bethesda doesn't canonize player identities. This has always been a thing. This isn't rocket science. What even are you arguing over? Please stop requesting things of me for your edit wars. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Uhhh, sorry you got the wrong idea Rock? There was never an edit war and nothing was directed at you, you weren't aware of this discussion, that's all. Coming in here and saying this whole discussion is pointless is the opposite of helpful. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)