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 & Male as a norm

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)

(←) Just to add to the confusion, some Legends cards depict the Hero of Kvatch (The Ultimate Heist and Fresh Start, although the latter one is debatable) as female and male. I do agree that we shouldn't try to identify the player heroes as either of them. --Ilaro (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think The Ultimate Heist has enough visible to say the HoK is female in the artwork, though I'll admit it's what I first thought when I saw it. I think it is reasonable for the depicted thief in that card to be the same, long-haired human man seen in various anniversary releases. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ilaro, that is a very great point. The card arts being ambiguous helps to further the vague nature of heroes.

It appears that the overall consensus is that usage of Generic he is not valid enough grounds to deem a hero as male for the many aforementioned reasons. Infoboxes should be changed to Unknown, albeit with a note that mentions instances of male pronouns referring to the hero as usage of generic ‘’he’’ or male as a norm. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to restate that, within the context of Neloth's dialogue, it is not correct usage of generic he. —⁠Legoless (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

We addressed this already, this is an instance of “male as a norm”. Neloth’s usage of “he” is only due to the dated practice of using male pronouns as a “default” to refer to someone of unknown identity. Neloth using these pronouns does not indicate that the hero is therefore male as that is reading too much into it. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

For Neloth's dialogue specifically, I don't think it was the use of "male as a norm" either, because then Kirkbride could/would have said that when he addressed the topic. Rather, it seems that the line of dialogue was accidentally written with a male Nerevarine in mind, and it slipped through development without being noticed. Hence Kirkbride said to consider it akin to a glitch that should be ignored, instead of responding that the "he" in the dialogue was simply being used as a norm and didn't imply a male Nerevarine. It is arguable that it was an instance of "male as a norm" and Kirkbride was unaware of this, but I personally think it is more likely to just be an accident. I also think this because a purposeful use of the generic "he" would not make sense for Neloth as a character to use since he knew the Nerevarine personally, nor be as likely for the dialogue writer to use since the singular "they" had become more common than the generic "he" by as early as 2002 in the US according to the Wikipedia article for the singular "they".

Either way, it doesn't change the consensus (6-3 against "Male") that these few instances of "he" (regardless of generic "he" or by accident) aren't enough to have "Male" in the infoboxes. BananaKing5 (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, we know from dev commentary that Neloth's line was seen as a writing mistake. The reason for this is because the implications on gender are clear. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's true, Neloth's line is either a writing mistake or usage of pre-singular they "male as a norm", and either way not sufficient enough to be an indicator of male. What BananaKing said is correct, the consensus is that Unknown is the better option and the infoboxes should be changed to reflect this. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I am also in favor of Heros having unknown gender. It is very clearly the intent of Bethesda with only minor slippups.Tarponpet (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

(←) It is more faithful to the canon sources to list the genderbox as "Male[nb 1]" and have the note detail the dev comments about generally avoiding giving Prisoners confirmed details. Sources like "The Warp in the West" referring to the Agent as male are specific, primary, and lack any ex-dev remarks about them being glitches. Mindtrait0r (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

For this source specifically, I think the lines being referred to are:

"...that a Blades agent was involved in employing that artifact. We unfortunately lost contact with that agent immediately after the event; his report might have gone some way to resolving the contradictory and paradoxical accounts of the event."

"I thought at first that it was suspiciously similar to what happened to another agent of ours in High Rock but a short time before, where a freak storm had shipwrecked him in the Iliac Bay near Privateer's Hold."

The first line could perhaps be the generic "he" since the author does not seem to know the Agent personally. The "we" seems to be the Blades as a whole, and the author seems distanced from the Agent. But the second line seems to be more specific, where the author is Naigon Strale and he heard directly about the Agent from Queen Barenziah. The usage of "him" as a gender neutral term doesn't seem to be a valid reading in this instance, in my opinion. Therefore, I could see this as an affirmation of the male gender for the Agent and possibly deserving of "Male[nb1]" depending on consensus.

That being said, this source would only be useful for claiming the Agent to be male, and I don't think it should have any bearing on the genderboxes of the rest of the heroes. The rest of the sources discussed so far have been accounted for, and I strongly support following the 7-3 consensus (with "Unknown" as the default in the genderbox). I think the possibility of the male gender for relevant heroes could definitely be a note, but I don't think the inverse with "Male[nb1]" in the genderbox and a note about dev comments would be optimal for heroes besides Talin and maybe the Agent. BananaKing5 (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mindtrait0r's sentiment. The effects of Neloth's pronoun usage are clear and we need to take note of the implication in some way. I think a note explaining why a Hero is being assigned a specific gender would be much more useful than pretending the source doesn't exist just because it wasn't the developers' intention. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I am rather a layman to this topic, but I utterly disagree with any definitive gendering of player characters. It simply wasn't the developer's intent to define these features of past player characters, if it was they would be far more overt about canonizing their identities with an assigned name and race and gender across the lore. Goodall has spoken to this intent in his 2005 interview. The only case I'd be vaguely chill with stating as truth is with the Eternal Champion, since the game's manual directly defines their identity, but that is a special case scenario, and honestly, one I personally think should be relegated to a notation rather than a body text fact, given Bethsoft's dissuasion with defining these features.

I hope you don't take this as hostile, but I think you're all overthinking this into obtusity. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Very well said, to add onto this the only over identities of assigned canon characteristics are Cyrus and Talym, who had their identities preset to begin with. Even Tiber Septim, who had an uncertain race, was still given specific descriptions in books like having blue eyes and an average height; despite their pivotal role in history, even the books mentioning the heroes keep most details about them vague, keeping in line with the ambiguity. For all other concerns people I have, I feel the need to mention that every other Hero will need a note in their infobox anyways mentioning that hero race/genders are player-determined. All descriptions of these heroes with specific pronouns will be going into the notes. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as there's a note recognising the issue, that's fine with me. All player character details are of course player-determined, but that is not the purpose of these lore pages. An in-universe firsthand source gendering a previous player character is worthy of mention. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am also in favor of mentioning these instances. I definitely think the Neloth dialogue and the Warp in the West book, for instance, should be noted on their respective hero pages since they gender the heroes and are not uses of the generic “he”. I don’t think sources like the Nerevarine Prophecy, on the other hand, needs a note since it clearly is the generic “he”. I think the way the Hero of Kvatch page is written is the best. While the depictions of a male imperial are mentioned in the notes, the actual infoboxes at the top of the page reflect the fact that the identity of the hero is meant to be ambiguous. So, for an example, the Nerevarine page would have “Unknown†” in the infoboxes, with the something like the following in the notes:

The race and gender of the Nerevarine are ultimately player-determined and left ambiguous. However, dialogue from Neloth in Dragonborn has referred to the Nerevarine as a male. Likewise, depictions of the Nerevarine in promotional artwork have been that of a male Dunmer.

I think this is best since it follows the consensus of this discussion for “unknown vs male” in the infoboxes, it mentions the instances where a hero has been gendered, it avoids misrepresenting sources that used the generic “he”, and it mentions the fact that the hero identity is ambiguous simply because it is meant to be player-determined. I believe this represents both sides to the discussion of intention vs evidence, while also sticking to the consensus of said discussion in the infoboxes. BananaKing5 (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully in agreement with BananaKing. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

(←) I still do not support this compromise. Having Unknown instead of the gender in the box is my dealbreaker. Realizing I'm likely to be outvoted, here's my final argument. Player choice is disregarded all over the wiki. The player's decision whether to complete Morrowind's Mages Guild questline with "Kill the Telvanni Councillors" was refuted by Neloth appearing in Dragonborn, and the wiki reflects this. The player choice to not do any particular side quest is disregarded by the wiki, which states that all quests were completed by their respective Hero. The choice to not take Stormkiss was decanonized by Blades, and the wiki reflects this. The player choice to name your character is disregarded in favor of Talin, the known canon.

All arguments for dismissing evidence on the basis of generic he have not addressed my argument that such a rule would then extend to a likely majority of all lorepages we have for males. Think about how many pages take their listed gender from books. That's all generic and unusable, according to this argument. The one time this point was mentioned, it was batted away with "this only applies to Heroes". At that point, generic he isn't even an argument anymore. It is just because they are Heroes, not because of the manner in which they are gendered. Only one reason has been provided thus far (other than a general attachment to player choice which the wiki already disregards in favor of established canon, as demonstrated above) for Heroes remaining genderless. That Goodall post.

Thing is, that post doesn't even mention gender. It mentions race, class, and name. The only reason for this whole discussion: a nearly 18-year-old interview question from one dev, prefaced by "as far as I know..." and contradicted by the very instances it is cited to ignore. The moment we take old dev posts with built in ambiguity/hesitation meant to be a general rule of thumb and not a hard policy over countless in-game instances to the contrary, for the sole purpose of catering to player choice which the wiki ignores in every other area in which it is contradicted, is the moment we stop cataloging facts and instead list the mere preferences of a fanbase. Mindtrait0r (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs to or should set a universal presidence across the entire wiki for how to handle situations, as far as I know everything is case by case. In the case of player characters with player manipulatable features, I believe we should defer to ambiguity and notations. Because again, Bethesda has deliberately chosen to not overtly define these things outside of Talin. It's not "original research" or whatever to consider these factors. Should Bethesda ever choose to make these features overtly unambiguous about player characters is when we should alter this proposed policy. For example, in the case of Prince Arthago of Sentinel in TES2, his name was purposely randomized in-game, but the TES2 game guide and later games overtly confirmed his identity.

Btw I hope we're all chill Mind, you do awesome work all over the place on the wiki. I just don't agree on this issue my man. Keep being rad y'all 🤘 --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR on the bottom for those who don't want to read all of this lol

On overt descriptions: I completely second this. In the beginning, I was in the camp of gendering the heroes. Still, in my head, the Nerevarine is a male Dunmer wielding Trueflame, the HoK a male imperial, and the LDB a male Nord in an iron helmet. But the reason I switched to the stance for the official genders to be "unknown" is precisely because there is no overt description of the heroes. An overt effort to define the heroes would go far beyond just the few instances of "he" and would look more like what Bethesda did for Cyrus and Talym Rend. For Redguard, we start the game as a male Redguard named Cyrus, and we can't change this. For Legends: Isles of Madness, we start as a male Dunmer named Talym Rend, and we can't change this. So the fact that Bethesda allows us to create our own, unique character for the main games (and the rest of Legends) tells me the hero is who we make them as. But more than just identity, Bethesda has gone out of its way to separate the hero from the lore as much as possible. Each hero has unknown beginnings except the bare minimum (battlemage for the Apprentice, crossing the border for the Last Dragonborn, etc.), and is immediately written off the board after the events of their game (EC retires and dies, Agent disappears and likely dies, Nerevarine disappears and in all likelihood goes to Akavir, HoK loses their identity after mantling Sheogorath). To me, this shows that Bethesda allows us to imagine the hero however we wish, then reclaims the setting in order to build the next game. By avoiding a set hero like the side games, and by writing the heroes out of the lore immediately after their games, this tells me that Bethesda purposefully does not want the heroes to be represented by any canon depiction in the lore, besides the fact that they performed the actions in their games.

On generic "he" for non-heroes: I agree that the generic "he" argument shouldn't be used as a universal precedence. To me, the generic "he" is an explanation, not a proof. I think it being used here is an example of eisegesis, because it explains what Bethesda did assuming an intent to obfuscate hero identity. So in this instance, I think the actual proof is the Goodall post and the seemingly deliberate lack of overt description for the heroes, as well as the fact Kirkbride bothered to denounce Neloth's dialogue as a glitch instead of uphold a male Nerevarine or ignore it if Bethesda didn't care. The generic "he" argument is not enough to reject descriptions of heroes on its own, but I think it is enough to explain why these descriptions occur when it's supported by Bethesda's intent. Thus, for lore characters that don't have any other reason to obfuscate their genders, I don't think the generic "he" argument can be applied. For example, I think the generic "he" argument holds for Odahviing's card description saying "he" for the LDB, because I would argue the proof against it is the intent of Bethesda to not canonize the identities (race, class, gender, name) of the heroes. The generic "he" argument then supports that proof by explaining why "he" could be gender neutral in the card. But for a lore character such as Jorg Helmolg, his gender is never actually stated at all outside of a later quote about Tongues in general, "such were the men that forged the First Empire". Jorg Helmbolg could technically have been a woman for all we know, and if I had evidence, I could defend that position by explaining that "such were the men" was generic and not describing Jorg Helmbolg. But there is no actual evidence to support that explanation, so arguing Jorg could be a woman is not a valid argument. Thus, Jorg Helmbolg is described as a man on this wiki.

To summarize, I don't think the generic "he" can disprove any evidence, only explain it away when supported by contradictory evidence. In this case, the contradictory evidence is the Goodall post and the lack of details about the heroes. For most of our pages, there is no contradictory evidence, so the generic "he" can't be used to redefine these males as people with unknown genders.

On facts vs preference: Lastly, I wanted to add on to the last part of Mindtrait0r's well-argued reply, "when stop cataloging facts and instead list the mere preferences of a fanbase". He makes a great point about a lapse in credibility if we prioritize our preferences over the facts of the matter. I agree that, as described, this would be a considerable issue in site credibility. The reason I specify "as described" however, is that I believe there is a small misunderstanding on the reason player choice is argued here. The reason player choice is being brought up here is not because of a preference that player choice should inherently matter, but because it is Bethesda's intent that we get to choose the hero's identity. So the reason those in favor of "unknown" are mentioning player choice is not because we are preferring player choice above all, it is because we are holding Bethesda's intent above all (previously this idea was discussed, but I'd like to clarify I mean Bethesda as a whole here and not just the unclarified desire of one writer). Additionally, the player choice that Mindtrait0r debunks is about the events of the games (for instance, if Neloth is killed, if Vivec is killed, if Stormkiss is taken, if Paarthurnax is killed, if the Stormcloaks or Imperials win, etc). I agree with Mindtrait0r that these player choices should definitely be ignored. Neloth is confirmed to have not been killed, Stormkiss is confirmed to have been taken, Vivec is never confirmed to have been killed or left alive, Paarthurnax should be confirmed killed as this was not a "divergent choice" quest but rather a "kill" quest that many ignored. For these in-game events, the canon result has been established by Bethesda, who intended for the player's choice to be disregarded when it canonized a decision (See how Bethesda's intent supercedes player choice when they are opposed). Likewise, I can play Skyrim as a farmhand that escapes Helgen, returns to Pelagia Farm, and harvests wheat for the rest of my days. This is a player choice that should also very well be ignored, because this is against Bethesda's intention that we are the Last Dragonborn and will defeat Alduin. But the player deciding the hero's identity is in line with Bethesda's intent according to Goodall's post and Bethesda's continued lack of overt description, and so this player choice should be upheld.

In all, I agree that we should never list the mere preferences of a fanbase over cataloging the facts. If TES 6 has some hated decision that the fanbase wants to ignore, we should still catalogue that decision. But I think it is important to maintain that this is Bethesda's world. If we choose to ignore Bethesda's will and intent, then that would pose another large credibility issue, since we would no longer be describing the Elder Scrolls but rather our Elder Scrolls. As I see it, Bethesda's intent > evidence >>> preferences. Bethesda seems to intend for everything we see to be canon, but in the few instances they release something that they want to take back, they should be able to.

Also, like TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead said, I hope we're all chill here. I wrote a lot but I promise it was not meant to be emphatic or intense. As far as I'm aware, everyone here is a great contributor to the site, and made great points for this discussion. I also think this topic is in essence a symbol of intent vs evidence, which is far more of a personal philosophy with no one right answer. I hope none of this was heated or intense, I, for one, just tend to write a lot to be thorough lol.

TL;DR I second this. Bethesda seems to avoid overtly describing the main heroes the way they overtly described Cyrus and Talym, and they write off the heroes immediately after their games. That's what changed my mind to begin with. For the generic "he", I don't think it can be used for non-heroes, because lore characters don't have contradictory evidence. The contradictory evidence for the heroes comes from Bethesda's intent. For facts vs preference, while facts are definitely more important than preferences, I think it is also important for us to maintain that Bethesda's intent is more important than in-game evidence since it is their universe and they may retcon it. Lastly, hopefully everything is chill, you all are great contributors! BananaKing5 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died down with no definitive consensus. Tallied up, there seems to be two users for defined gender pronouns on hero pages and seven users against defined gender pronouns, with the caveat of listing instances of gender indications in the notes section of each hero page. The latter seems to be a reasonable resolution which most here agree with implementing. How do y'all feel about this? --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, that is a good consensus based on the comments above. Jeancey (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I also would agree with this consensus.Tarponpet (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Just found out this existed. I agree that genders should remain ambiguous on hero pages, with notes about any potential "canon" gender. I dont think the possibly gender-neutral "he" for the Nerevarine in TES V is a confirmation that they were a male. Talin's name should definitely remain however, but the use of the word "allegedly" seems like a fair compromise.Analeah Oaksong (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hero of Dawnstar

Is there a source for this name? I guess it's probably just a generic placeholder that conveniently fills both the game's name and the primary location they saved, so it works well enough, but is there any other name we can use that is referenced in-game or in promotional material? Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It's just a placeholder name. We have replaced every other generic hero name over the years with something more appropriate, but Dawnstar offers nothing. All we know is that the player character is sent to Dawnstar in exile, which would indicate membership of the Legion if it's in any way a similar situation to Fort Frostmoth. —⁠Legoless (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd add that on Bethesda's own timelines from Daggerfall Chronicles and their 90s web page each player character was named the "Hero of Arena" or the "Hero of Daggerfall," so having the "Hero of Dawnstar" is in-keeping with that. --TheRockWithAMedicineCupOnHisHead (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't made the connection. That's a good point and probably goes back to the original thinking on this page. —⁠Legoless (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hero of Dawnstar Image

Somewhat related to this topic, is there any better image that can be used for the Hero of Dawnstar? It feels inappropriate to use a Skyrim image, which is both an entirely separate game and was released years later. Even a picture of the empty hallway from the game might be better, or since all the NPCs look very similar, a picture of one of them? Worst case, I'd say crop the icon of the player's hand that appears in the HUD. —Dillonn241 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I used an image of the city cause it just better conveyed what they even saved instead of just a hallway, using a simialr logic to the Blades logo to repeesent the Sheathed Blades, but fine, I replaced it.Tarponpet (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I kind of preferred the previous image. There isn't anything really appropriate for Dawnstar or Stormhold. If we don't want an unrelated image of the city, I'd suggest leaving both entries without any image. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer no image in this case, like Legoless said. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

(←) I'd rather we put an image of the Gehenoth and caption that it was the Hero's biggest adversary. Otherwise, it would seem no image is best, as there's no depiction of Dawnstar's exterior in the first game. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that idea, yeah. No image or an image of the hallway seems best. Gehnoth makes sense as a supporting antagonist for the same reason the four do I think - Supporting cast around the hero. — Unsigned comment by 333dragonb0rned (talk • contribs) on 8:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Dynasty of Odar the Brave

The official trailer calls you the Hand of the King 35 seconds in, while the description of the trailer calls you Right-Hand of the King. Should we switch to that?Analeah Oaksong (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that title accurately reflects the gameplay very well. I assume its more metaphorical aswell as in, you literally control the king. It can take place over countless generations aswellTarponpet (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Moivva Karnai and the Contents of this Page

I think this page, by its own rules, must include Moivva Karnai, the Thalmor agent controlled during the tutorial of Skyrim: The Adventure Game. I asked about this on the Discord and everyone unanimously agreed she shouldn't be included. However, I don't feel like this is a consistent option with what we have here. As is, any character who is playable at any point during official material is included as a Hero. From this logic, Moivva Karnai should be here. The brevity of her section shouldn't be relevant, considering Odar is included - not just his dynasty, I believe, but him, as this is what the picture specifically references, and it is his page transcluded - and his section also functions as a brief tutorial.

If, for whatever reason, Moivva Karnai is desired to not be included, I contend that we must re-evaluate all the entries here. I don't think such a conclusion is the best course, though. I like what we have here right now, with any playable character included. I disagree with renaming the page to Player Characters, as was suggested on the Discord, since that is a purely gameplay term, and does not belong in the lorespace as a title. I also vehemently oppose the idea that we should be separating Heroes and Prisoners based on some sort of "unknown identity" criteria. Mindtrait0r (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As one who disagreed with the inclusion of Moivva, I'll explain in brief. She's barely a character, a tutorial stand in PC for a brief three practice quests for the table top game. This page is quickly and rapidly becoming the "Player Character" page. The criteria of Hero is completely non-existent, essentially an excuse to shove in every single player controlled character in the franchise under one page. That's why I suggested that were she to be included, as the page is now, it should essentially be renamed "Player Characters". It more accurately conveys the current purpose of the page, because showcasing "Heroes" in TES it is not. This is true of Odar I would press as well, and even would extend it to Talym or Cyrus. All are far away from the acasual "Prisoner Hero" Sotha Sil describes, or the "Born under uncertain stars loophole" Kirkbride describes. If "Hero"/Prisoner is solely defined on whether we played the character the page may very well be renamed to such. If we're going to go by Zurin's definition of a Hero as another user in the discussion on discord suggested, then the page should be expanded to include non-played Prophecized Heroes such as Tiber Septim, Alessia, and more.

As for the suggestion of separating the "Heroes" and "Prisoners", that is the non-customizable characters to customizable, I brought up the idea (though without the use of term Heroes or prisoners) to salvage the page as a whole so it can communicate better what is the Prisoner Hero and what is just a noteworthy character we played. That is beyond the scope of just whether Moivva should be included though so leaving it there, disagree at her inclusion. The Entity (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The concept of the Hero/Prisoner in TES is about player characters. It is a messy area of lore as a result. Trying to redefine what a Hero is requires us to ignore this metacommentary.

In my view, if Moivva Karnai is controlled by the player, she needs to be mentioned on the page. I haven't played enough of S:TAG to have an informed opinion, but I completely reject any suggestion of re-evaluating the current entries or renaming the page to something that isn't lore-appropriate over the sake of this question. Both are logical extremes. —⁠Legoless (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Precisely the point I was making, the page already ignores the metacommentary on what the Prisoner is. The Prisoner is transparently a metaphor for the player customizable PCs. Sotha Sil directly claims the Prisoner is one who is free from the Imprisonment of the World, one who may free the World, beyond the rules of Cause and Effect. Directly paralleling their statement within the same conversation on Vivec, whom Sotha claims wishes to be radically free, which Sotha describes as being able to be anything, any race, any gender, every hero etc. Similarly the original mention of the concept by Kirkbride in 2008 directly ties the idea of "Prisoner Hero" to those that are born under "uncertain stars", akin to the LDB or Nerevarine, those customizable pick their starsign PCs.

The metacommentary present is that we are unbound precisely because we can make any character we want. Be anyone we want. It's a metaphysic justification and explanation for both Player Choice and Player Creation. Cyrus, Talym, Odar, and this latest suggestion would be clearly disqualified under the intended metacommentary of Prisoner. They are functionally generic mortals, the only significance to them is we play them all briefly, especially briefly in the case of Odar and this latest suggestion. To put it short the page as is suggesting, Odar, a dime a dozen generic king who dies in the intro of the game he makes an appearance in, is a legendary Unbound from Fate Hero who can potentially free the World makes the page incredibly unserious. The Page as is, is completely lore-inappropriate and rides solely on the meta of "We played this character here is a list of characters we played". The Entity (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, ODAR himself is not thr hero of castles, but the many player determined heirs. Who the player can even cause their births and name them.Tarponpet (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I never had an issue with Cyrus or Talym because there are a few choices we can make for those characters in their respective games that can alter their destinies and fates. I think individuality and the ability to make *any* choice that alters the Hero in questions fate is more important for the criteria than being able to choose race, gender, and appearance. So imo, Talym, and Cyrus fit the bill but I haven’t been a fan of the inclusion of the Sheathed Blades or the Odar Dynasty, as I don’t think a collective multitude can fit the Prisoner criteria by its very nature. I would like to see those two removed personally. As for this Moivva person, I’d like to know more about the nature of how we control her before I make a determination. I don’t agree that just because we pilot a character for any amount of time that they fit the criteria. For example in flashbacks in eso and legends we pilot historical figures and in some cases get to effect the history therein as far as I’m aware, but I wouldn’t have them under the Hero banner based on that.Dcking20 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Was mistaken on the emphasis of Odar specific given it covers the Dynasty. But point still applies broadly to Moivva or say, Talym. On the ability to decide their fate Dcking, Mortals can all do that to some extent already as Ithelia states, "We learned that every Ithelia is dangerous, a broken creature that ends up hunted. We cannot change who we are. But mortals? You choose your paths. You don't need the powers of a Daedric Prince to alter your fate. I envy this. Goodbye, pathwalker.", the distinction still only makes sense to be the player creation aspect most primarily. Given also the emphasis Kirkbride also gave on that aspect, as well as the great stress Seht gave on being whoever you want.

As for what we do with Moivva, we play her for three practice quests in the tutorial, where we "Clear a cave for the mysterious voice in your head.", then " Use your contacts in Windhelm to help capture dangerous criminals to the Thalmor." and then, "Aid Narince in setting up a trap in a ruin not far from Windhelm.". This character who is more of a footnote in history than Jarl Balgruuf, being designated "Hero" on this page appears very wrong to me. The Entity (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I would be against that person's inclusion yeah. EVERYONE else atleast does something heroic, or defeats someone impressive.Tarponpet (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Dynasty of Odar is not exactly a particularly heroic bunch with impressive victories of people. AFAIK the only claim to such things they have is defeating dragons, but unless I'm mistaken you choose champions to fight, no? Not the dynasty themselves? Either way, doing something heroic has never been a criterion for inclusion on this page. Hell, one could make an argument that the Agent of Daggerfall is quite morally ambiguous with the alternate endings considered. Tiber Septim, Alessia, et cetera will never have a place on this page, since there is a different between a Hero and a hero. Historical importance is similarly irrelvant when considering if someone belongs on this page. The Forgotten Hero is literally forgotten and unknown, thus Moivva Karnai's status as a footnote in history, as you say, is more than the Forgotten Hero's. Talym Rend is actually in a very comparable boat to Moivva Karnai. They were both servants of a national power, the Empire and Dominion, respectively, but faced personal conflict with a Daedric Prince. Not much historical going on there.

Taking over the bodies of historical figures in ESO time travel sequences is not the same things as actually controlling/playing as a character. You are still very much "you" in those ESO instances, and retain the memories of experiencing life through their bodies when you exit those states. That's the whole point most of the time, you live through them in order to gain knowledge to use in some conflict. Laloriaran Dynar even confirms that he recognizes you from the soldier you were time-travel possessing thousands of years prior. As for the criterion of making specific choices, both Odar and Moivva Karnai do make such choices, with Odar making the significant choice of deciding who to leave in his will as next in line for his dynasty, as well as the not-so important choice of how to respond to his wife about his accused affair. As for Moivva Karnai, she makes the similarly quite impactful decision of whether to uphold her orders from the Thalmor or to follow the commands of the Daedric Prince she has been telepathically hearing. That is to say, the player controlling Odar / Moivva Karnai makes these important decisions. Mindtrait0r (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would personally be for the inclusion of Moivva. A Hero (Prisoner) has a few criteria that need to be met to be a Hero; they must have a special fate and must be able to rule their own destiny. They are able to forge their own fate, ostensibly in a way unique and distinct from the way Ithelia speaks of mortals. Outside-of-universe, this comes down to the fact that the player character is not coded to perform certain actions (free to choose their fate) but still has a questline to complete in the game (has a special fate). I'd argue this uniqueness in choosing fate differs from Ithelia's quote because in-universe free will is not the same as out-of-universe "not coded". While I'm not familiar with Moivva, she has quests to complete (a special fate) and is not hard-coded (we make the choice to side with the Thalmor or a Daedric Prince). The issue I see with this is the in-universe explanation of claiming her to be a hero. Moivva is in no way comparable to the full heroes of the games, or even Skyrim:TAG. There is nothing that makes her different from somebody like Aranea Ienith or Falx Carius, who were all mortals living their own lives, until Daedric Princes decided to interact with them. Just as Moivva struggles with Mephala in her head, Aranea followed Azura in hers and Falx was directly chosen by Hircine as a hare. There is nothing noteworthy about Moivva at all, whereas every other Hero has actually done something noteworthy. But, there have been many non-Prisoners like Martin Septim, Darien Gautier, Leramil the Wise, Shalidor, Vanus Galerion, Frandar Hunding, etc. who have done far more than bonafide Heroes like the Master Tunnel Rat or Hero of Dawnstar. So it really comes down to what Hero is meant to describe. As far as I know, "Hero" has always been "someone free from predetermined decisions and has special quests" and not "someone who has done great deeds". Therefore, Moivva would count as a Hero insofar as she is a Prisoner. She's just immensely weak and disappointing compared to the rest. But some Heroes like Master Tunnel Rat and the Hero of Dawnstar are disappointing compared to many non-Heroes anyway, so now they just have someone to look down on too. BananaKing5 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Long Term Solution

Honestly I think Entity hit the nail with his comment that this page isn't lore appropriate. We're going to find more and more fringe cases, and have an increasingly dysfunctional page if we continue to pursue the goal of listing every character we've ever played here. We already had examples that don't fit in easily, like Cyrus and Talym. And now we have an additional class of examples that don't fit in well, with these "group heroes" that don't meet the lore definition of a Hero or Prisoner. Meanwhile this page doesn't do the best job of actually exploring the lore surrounding heroes or prisoners. This can be amended either way, but I think this was neglected for so long due to the focus on this being a hub page for the player characters.

So I'm proposing that Lore:Hero be turned into an article that focuses on the metaphysical analysis on heroes/prisoners. And the page as it is be moved to the general namespace, with all playable characters listed there without any worry about the lore definition of a hero at all. Both pages would obviously link back to each other.

There is already an existing precedent for doing this exact thing when gameplay considerations get into the way of presenting the lore. Such as when the lore page for calendar was moved to the general namespace, with comparisons of individual game calendars with real world calendars.

This move will also hopefully take some of the fuel out of this page's ongoing community disagreements. If the part of the content that is causing controversy continuously is in the general namespace where standards are more relaxed, I think the result will be a more amenable page with fewer long discussions in the future. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this proposal. The confusion on this has been going for a bit and it should help to remove the ambiguity of the pages function The Entity (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely against moving this sacred, one of a kind lore article out of lore space. No way. We can be picky with who gets added and come to that conclusion by consensus (I still feel Odar Dynasty and Sheathed Blades needs to go) but this article must remain, as a lore article. Dcking20 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would mostly support AKB's proposal I think. With a caveat being I do think any remaining player characters without their own Lore articles get one so they still have a presence in Lorespace. Like Lore:Master Tunnel Rat for instance only links to the list here currently. And if the list gets moved to general we'd need an actual page for the links to those characters to go. Also I think the New Lore:Hero should promiently and obviously link to the General list page. -Tarponpet (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Tarp's contingent and AKB's proposal. Mindtrait0r (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AKB's proposal as well. Jeancey (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This proposal is ridiculous. Removing a page from lorespace not for any lore related reasons (see: Ehlnofey language charts being moved to General, or the IRL section of Lore:Calendar becoming General:Calendar) but because "consensus can be difficult sometimes when every 20 years we get a new hero" is truly just incomprehensible. I'm of the opinion that anyone playable should be on this page as long as of an official game, be it digital or physical, but that's beyond the point here. There is -no- reason to remove this entirely lore-heavy page from lore. What's next? Deleting the Lore articles for every individual hero? AGAINST PROPOSAL. CoolBlast3 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(←) My proposal has a definite lore basis, as we have this page more and more frequently rubbing up against the definition of what a hero is. Discussions surrounding this page happen much more than once every twenty years, it's one of our most active talk pages by far, which is a very good indication of the amount of dissatisfaction with the state of the article as it is (if the words above this post don't also make that clear). My proposal is intended to both help this page, and allow us to easily document the playable characters in the way you specifically say you would prefer (with the only change being the namespace). As far as individual hero pages go, I'm in favor of them. I have personally created the pages for Lore:Nerevarine, Lore:Hero of Kvatch, and Lore:Last Dragonborn. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the page from lorespace in my opinion would be a disservice, but its form certainly could use some changes. No matter how "gamey" some heroes are, the concept of prisoner/prophesied hero IS a lore concept. And a crucial concept at that.Tyrvarion (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposal is specifically stating that Lore:Hero would be replaced with a page specifically about the concept of prisoners/heroes in its lore context. Just not a list and description of each individual player character. Jeancey (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You -literally- cannot have a page on Prisoners/Heroes without mentioning the player characters. They are heavily interlinked (hell, look at Sotha's chat with the Vestige). Not to mention other Prisoners also directly linked to prophecies which fits in perfectly with Zurin's statement on them. You are arguing to remove an essential part of the lore from lorespace because "discussion is too hard, easier to yeet into general".CoolBlast3 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd propose then a compromise of the current page being kept in lore, and a new General page dedicated to PCs be created instead. Then the existing page can have greater focus pushed on Sotha Sil's "Prisoner concept" and we can also go overthe existing Heroes who would be appropriate for this page vs. Better fitting on the General "Player Characters" page. Can also keep much of the lore relevant content already present on the page as it is expanded and tuned up. The Entity (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They'll certainly be mentioned.... It's just not going to be a straight list of player characters. Examples can be given without just being a list.... I'm not really understanding where the issue is.... Everything you seem to want from this page will still exist on the wiki.... This page will become more meta-physical about the prisoner/hero dynamic overall in a lore context, with examples given in prose as lore generally is, and then a straight list of playable characters from each game will be housed in General. Individual heros will have pages in lore, as they do now. What exactly is the issue, aside from the fact that a list of playable characters (which is outside of lore by it's definition) is now in General instead of Lorespace? Jeancey (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(←) In my ideal version of this if this proposal is accepted, we would still be mentioning the heroes. It just wouldn't be a list/hub page anymore, but exploring them in their roles as heroes specifically. Things that would receive a particularly heavy emphasis would be stuff like Sotha Sil discussing the role of the prisoner with the Vestige (which is currently only on this page in the notes section). --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the alternate suggestion just provided by Entity. That the addition of a Player Character page will allow for the Hero list in Lore to become more focused. For instance a prisoner page going simply off the lore provided by the likes of Sotha Sil would only include the main created characters as opposed to people like Cyrus. But Cyrus would still be listed on the new General Player Characters list.Tarponpet (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d definitely be more on board with that idea Entity. We are definitely allowed to be selective about who we want on the page and that should require no call to move the page to general. From what I’ve seen, most entires would be default stays, with those needing to go to the consensus chopping block being Cyrus and Talym the non customization characters, Odar's Dynasty and the Sheathed Blades the multitudes, and a final decision on this Moivva Karnai.Dcking20 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing those suggested from this page as previously I supported their inclusion as this was the only apprporiate page for listing player characters. I think all of those removed should atleast also have dedicated Lore articlrd when they don't already.Tarponpet (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

While I vastly prefer AKB's original solution, if more people fall on the side of Entity's compromise, I'd rather Entity's compromise go through than no change at all. No one has said that the page should be moved because "discussion is too hard" or "consensus can be difficult", what was said is that, as a lore page, this page should cover the properties of Prisoners rather than the current brief introduction touching upon the subject before regressing into merely listing playable characters. It has always been a bit of an assumption to conclude that every playable character is a Hero (and this Moivva discussion has revealed that that assumption isn't even concretely accepted). Reworking this page into an actual documentation of the in-universe powers, nature, and role of the Prisoners is more suited to a lore article. For a precedent in an existing page, see Lore:Shezarrine. But since it should still be documented somewhere who all the player characters are across TES, a general article is the perfect solution. And, as AKB said, his proposal would still have the relevant player characters mentioned, just not fully listed in transcludes which take up the bulk of the page. I imagine something like "Sotha Sil once identified the Vestige as a Prisoner." and expanding on that conversation from there. Mindtrait0r (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with a change; either AKB's original solution or Entity's compromise works for me with a slight preference to AKB's. Focusing on the lore abilities and powers of the Prisoner should trump listing all of the potential Heroes. However, I think some Heroes must still be listed because of their links to being Prisoners, such as the Vestige with Sotha Sil's dialogue, the Last Dragonborn with Tsun's Doom-Driven quote, and the Hero of Kvatch with Dyus's inability to predict his success. That said, any Hero that isn't tied to the discussion of the Prisoner as a lore concept shouldn't be on the lore page, especially if their status as a Hero is already dubious. I also think the Lore:Shezarrine page is a good example of a more speculative page getting altered into a more concrete lore page, and should inform this change. I agree with the idea of prominently linking to the General PC page as well, because they should all be Heroes as far as I'm aware. BananaKing5 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

(←) I am totally opposed to moving any of this info to the General namespace. Prior to the SIRP project, lorespace editors avoided any mention of game events, due in part to difficulties reconciling the in-universe actions of player characters. Such a position would be untenable these days. The work done on this page over the years plays a large part in enabling our less-controversial coverage of game events on other lore pages. This page will continue to be a topic of contention due to the nature of canon and player choice in TES. The answer is not to give up or redefine the topic when we already have in-universe language for describing these player characters. Reducing or splitting our coverage will not prevent "ongoing community disagreements", nor should that be our goal. We need an article in lorespace which describes all player characters, and we need to reach a consensus on what that page should entail.

I believe the discussions above are misguided in trying to redefine player character lore based on in-game sources that define the concepts of Hero and Prisoner. This is the wrong approach; we need to reconcile those in-universe definitions with the reality that we're trying to write about the actions of video game player characters from a historical perspective. That has always been a difficult task for the wiki, and it's only natural that this difficulty would grow as the franchise expands to include new genres like tabletops and casual mobile sims. Failing to document the actions of the player for those new games is a step backwards for lorespace. —⁠Legoless (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Legoless completely on this. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I prefer both Legoless and Entities proposals over the initial suggestion. Dcking20 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I also find myself agreeing with Legoless' proposal here. Floognoodle (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If one of the main sticking points for opposition for this change is based upon the hub being moved out of lorespace, after looking for similar pages for existing precedent, I have an alternative solution that keeps this page as a hub page in lorespace. We adopt a wording similar to the introduction for Lore:Loremaster's Archive here, explaining that this is a page for all the player characters. At the same time, we turn Lore:Prisoner into its own page documenting the metaphysics of heroes and their history throughout the TES timeline. They both prominently link to each other, including using intnotes. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to see this article continue to be written from an in-universe perspective, as mandated by our lore guidelines.

I accept that there's a need to provide fuller documentation of the concepts of Hero, Prisoner, Numinous similar to what was done with Lore:Shezarrine and as a topic distinct from this list of player characters. For instance, The Nine Coruscations recently identifies Alessia as a Hero, which does not neatly fit our current definition. That being said, the topics are intertwined, and I don't see how this article could be complete without adding a section/transclusion discussing those concepts.

If a rename is in order, I'm of the opinion that it must remain lore-friendly. I don't think "Lore:Player Character" would be appropriate for the namespace. Maybe "Lore:Protagonists" to match the {{Lore Antagonists}} template recently created by KevinM? Still a little too much breaking of the fourth wall for my taste, but I'm struggling to think of an alternative if consensus is against keeping this list at Lore:Hero. —⁠Legoless (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm in a minority here, but I don't see any particular need to have a page dedicated to listing all the Player Characters any more than all the Antagonists. The navbox serves the purpose just fine, and it could still be linked to at the bottom of this page if it were converted to a purely lore-based documentation of the role, importance, and powers of the Prisoners. In which case, the remaining discussion would once again be a question of inclusion. Mindtrait0r (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think my position is somewhere in the middle. The most important thing for me at the moment is fleshing out the lore information on Heroes/Prisoners. The lore for Heroes/Prisoners can definitely be expanded with details from Sotha Sil, Dyus, and the Nine Coruscations. Outside of that, I don't think the list of Heroes should be changed that much (besides adding Alessia and further discussion of inclusion). It gives crucial context for Heroes that would be lost by just listing names. I also agree with Legoless' apprehension about not redefining player character lore. Player Characters are intrinsically linked to the Prisoners (at least for now, adding Alessia might show that Bethesda/ZOS is changing things), so it would be inaccurate of us if we treated Prisoners as separate and unrelated. I think this page should emphasize the information on Heroes over the list though. Essentially, I think this page could stay mostly the same as long as the lore information at the beginning is greatly fleshed out and emphasized over the list of Heroes, while the list shows what Prisoners have done in history. I think the current page only seems to focus so much on the Player Characters as a consequence of the insufficient information at the top and not as a consequence of the list. As for the extent of who should be in the list, I think that needs further discussion.

As a side note, a general page for player characters (and antagonists) could likely be a beneficial addition to general space anyway for new visitors to see, not for their lore but for them as video game characters. BananaKing5 (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)