Lore talk:Soul Shriven

Multiplayer

Context: [1] [2] [3]

This argument against mentioning the fact that ESO is a multiplayer game has cropped up a few times now and is truly tiresome. I have partially reverted both of the above edits on the basis of denial of fact:

1. We know multiple characters exist in ESO and are soul shriven. This is the in-universe and in-game explanation given to explain players respawning (source) and fast travelling (source).
2. We recognise in lorespace that only one individual ("the Vestige") performs most of the game's events, since that is how the quests are written in-game. Most, not all. Multiplayer quests and PvP content involve multiple player characters and therefore this is acknowledged when writing about that content in lorespace. This is the exact same scenario here, particularly when we are already given an in-universe explanation for this (see point #3).
3. Chaotic Creatia: The Azure Plasm states: "He went on to speculate that if such a thing were possible, it would probably occur in a situation where the Mundus was in existential jeopardy. In that case the Heart of Nirn would spontaneously generate such "paragon" individuals as a way of defending itself from destruction, in a manner analogous to the way the mortal body fights off infection." This is an-universe theory which predates the events of ESO and conveniently gives us a lore explanation for why there would be so many paragon Soul Shriven player characters walking around. From an out-of-universe perspective, it is painfully obvious what this text is trying to tell us. The argument for its removal seems to rest on the fact that this is simply a "theory", but if you accept the fact that ESO is a multiplayer game it seems to me that this theory has been proven correct; the Planemeld has put Mundus in existential jeopardy, and in response Mundus has created a vast number of heroes to defend it. This sentence might as well be marketing material for the game.
4. Unreliable narrator is a trope in TES and is not an excuse to delete information from a lore page. The reliability of the sources can be called into question without resorting to that.

This insistence that writing about the multiplayer aspects of an MMO is somehow original research simply does not hold water. The fact that ESO player characters become Soul Shriven needs to be included on this article in some form and I welcome suggestions for how best to word this without outright deleting information. I have tried to accomodate this point of view by clarifying on the page that there is only one Vestige (which is how we're handling it everywhere else in lorespace) and adding the word "seemingly" to couch the theory in uncertain language, but I'm sure this can be improved upon. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote the page origianlly and my intent was to illustrate that the lore itself gives us an explanation of the multiplayer. The old sentence works and is sufficiently ambigious in this context... and there is nothing to say that multiple soul shriven escaped Coldharbour but only one of the became the hero of ESO. --Jimeee (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess the reasoning behind us stating that there is only one Vestige is because that is how many of the quests are written. Only one person is present to banish Molag Bal at Heart's Grief given it's an instanced area, so it becomes impossible for us to reconcile multiplayer in that context. However, in the context of Chaotic Creatia (and group dungeons, and the Alliance War, etc.) it becomes prudent if not necessary to mention the existence of other players. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The argument wouldn't be that it is original research. The argument is that it is a game mechanic. It's a multiplayer game and that necessitates multiple people, but the quests are all written (and thus the actual game world is treating it) as if there is a single player going through the story. At that point overriding all that information because "I can see other people" is simply a game mechanic that shouldn't be referenced in lore. Jeancey (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's probably not a question with one completely clear answer.

1. I don't think the comparison to the immune response necessitates there being a large number of individuals. We only have one hero during Oblivion and Skyrim, and those are both threats of comparable significance to ESO. "The world is sick, in imminent danger of dying, so the world itself produces a hero to fight off the disease, just like a body's immune response." This is true even if only one hero is produced per event. Even if there are multiple formed, these individuals are 'paragons' before they become Soul Shriven. It could be many heroes throughout ESO are also paragons, even if they were not transformed into Soul Shriven.
2. What we see from other players is not necessarily going to be lore-worthy. I can see other players wielding the Prismatic Weapon, even though there is just one. I can see the head of a boss I defeated decorating the wall of another player's house, even though the same head is in my own house. Thus, I would not confidently state that other players using wayshrines is a lore indication that all are paragon Soul Shriven.
3. I especially oppose the statement that multiple of these paragons escaped Coldharbour. In order to escape, we needed an active Dark Anchor portal, a way to get into it, and a Skyshard (summoned by the Prophet) that we could drain in order to attune our bodies back to Nirn. The idea that myriads escaped does not fit well with this. The idea seems more to be a relic of pre-release lore such as The Numinous.
4. Using soul gems to resurrect other players is slightly more persuasive to me than a blanket 'multiplayer is lore' standard. I'm not sure if there is any clear information given on how this resurrection works in the first place, though. The Necromancer resurrect mentioning 'back from the brink of death' may indicate it is only mostly dead, with the gems powering some sort of Restoration spell.

I completely agree that multiplayer is part of this game's lore: adventurers team up and take down some of the great threats in Tamriel and beyond. However, with our given sources, we would have to draw conclusions to claim "countless paragon Soul Shriven escaped Coldharbour during the uprising". I think that statement enters the realm of Original Research. We know the Vestige escaped, and it could well be that thousands of other PSS escaped alongside. However, I don't know of any lore sources that tell us this is so, and I don't know how to interpret the gameplay sources with a standard that doesn't also lead to ridiculous outcomes. Thus, we should keep our lore page strictly to what we can state confidently: the theory was correct, evidenced by the appearance of the Vestige who escaped Coldharbour during the uprising, ultimately defeating Molag Bal and ending the Planemeld. --Lost in Hyrule (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Lost in Hyrule. There is no real indication in-game that there is more than one paragon vestige, other than what is more than likely just gameplay mechanics (other players being able to resurrect themselves etc.). The statement that several such vestiges escaped while being led by Lyris Titanborn has absolutely zero in-game support, as only the player and the Prophet are seen escaping Coldharbour. That sentence should most definitely be removed or changed. Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)