Elder Scrolls Lore Bad?

[Therumancer]

I've seen some accusations that Elder Scrolls has some bad lore in comparison to other RPG's. I mean... What? I've seen some of what I think to be the coolest lore in The Elder Scrolls. And yes, I know that's just, like, my opinion, man, but c'mon now. I honestly can't think of what's not to like about ES lore. Maybe it's... Too simple for others I guess... ?

It's perhaps most accurate to say that Elder Scrolls HAD good Lore and now it does not. This is in part because one of the things that set Elder Scrolls apart was the amount of time the creative team spent writing all of the books and tidbits. Once they got as far as "Morrowwind" however they started recycling material and pretty much all the books and lore pieces were largely the same ones you would have found in previous games. Sure they add and remove some things, but it got kind of lazy, and it meant a lot of the world building went the way of the Dodo. One might think that given the apparently prolific publication industry of Tamriel where books are everywhere (unlike the real ancient world) that The Empire and Skyrim would have their own literary traditions and of course a lot of different historical books or at least ones written from a different perspective than say the ones you picked up in Morrowwind. What's more once you've tracked down the entire set of say "The Mystery Of Princess Talara" in one game the motivation to collect and read the set sort of diminishes and they pretty much keep recycling the same stuff without substantially growing their library.

Another problem I might add is how it's hard to build good lore when the people designing the game have an incredible disrespect for their own material. While things from say "Daggerfall" or even "Arena" are referenced and can even have some plot relevance to why certain things unfolded the same way they did, they have more or less redefined entire races. Krajit rather than being pretty much humans with some catlike features are now full on anthromorphs, the dwarves were written out of the game entirely, but in doing so they redefined them into an ancient civilization leaving behind dusty old ruins, and gave their lands to a new race ALSO calling themselves "Redguards" who happen to be a dark skinned sea faring race known for martial prowess and we're supposed to accept these guys were there all along and had somehow been a factor in history but of course for those who actually played these games since Arena that makes like zero sense.

Now people have long said these changes don't matter, and to be honest the gameplay effect has largely been fairly minimal. In the sense of lore and world building however it's a giant joke, it's also something that really can't be effectively corrected at this point. Personally I kind of snicker whenever I hear the name "Redguards Of Hammerfell" and then see the weird "Sinbad" arab meets carribean culture since what sounds like a perfectly fine name for dominant dwarven clan and an empire they named just doesn't quite feel right for the people that are supposed to live there now and named it that on their own.

I suppose if Bethesda decided to get some more ambition and alongside developing the next game put as much work into the books and lore as they did previously they could mostly correct this problem. Also while it would get kind of cosmic, another thing they could always do is say that the great dwarven accident actually re-wrote reality and transformed them into the current Redguards and all the non-sequitors were the result of this, and have restored as dwarves in order to tie everything together and remove the current somewhat redundant race where we already have human warrior species. Three flavors of elves and no dwarves (hey I like dwarves) always felt wrong. Likewise if they did this it would give an excuse to re-cycle some of the material from Arena and Daggerfall (the latter in particular) which referenced Hammerfell heavily as a dwarven nation, there was a decent amount of it.

That said, these games have largely been about the gameplay, and I eagerly await the next one, truthfully fixing the lore is probably not going to happen, I just can't see Bethesda doubling or tripling the number of readable books to expand on the world, add more differing perspectives never mind bringing the dwarves back.

 

[Glongpre]

One of the more intriguing things I came across in Oblivion was actually a castle high up in the mountains, which was full of blindfolded katana-wielding monks. I'd never seen or heard any mention of such a place or sect, and I still don't really know what they were about, but just randomly stumbling upon it made it so much more interesting.

I believe they are part of a thieves guild quest. But yes, they are a cool addition to the game, it is a fun quest. I think they should put things like that in newer games, but make them not part of quests so you have to stumble on them accidentally. That would be so cool.

 

[Recusant]

I'm seeing a lot of misinterpretations here; allow me to shed a little light.
First- the world of the Elder Scrolls series began as an outgrowth of Julian Lefay's Dungeons and Dragons campaigns- before the game series even began, the world already had a great deal of backstory and world-building behind it. As the series has progressed, others have taken up the loremaster role, and many haven't bothered to so much as go back and ask "wait, did we already do this?" or "what was this place actually like?". Many of the retcons that have occurred have done so for just this reason; it's why Oblivion gave us a Cyrodiil that was a pastiche of the English countryside rather than the jungle it should've been. It's why the world was absolutely terrified of even the possibility of dragons returning after thousands of years of absence in Skyrim, despite the fact that you easily have killed dozens of them in Daggerfall.

Second- the lore is stupidly deep. Very little of it is handed to you, and much you have to go looking for, but it's out there. Also, since most of what you get is presented in books that are supposed to be subjective, and sometimes outright propaganda. When you realize this, it goes quite a ways towards making the world actually feel alive. Different races and factions have different world-creation myths that they each present as hard, incontestable fact. Daggerfall told us Tiber Septim was a Breton, in Skyrim he was a Nord (unless I missed it, Morrowind didn't claim he was a Dunmer; given that loremaster's vaguely disturbing over-fondness for them I was rather surprised by that). The (background) events of each game (save Skyrim, and obviously Arena) were hinted at (often both subtly and obliquely) in the games that came before them. It's a world that rewards exploring and examining, far beyond "look to see what's past that next rock".

Third, and perhaps most significantly- Morrowind is not the first game in the series. It was titled "Elder Scrolls 3" for a reason; there were four games that came before it (no one in the video games industry knows how to count, do they?). Each game focuses on a different area, the lore it gives is usually focused on that culture(s) as well. The evolution of the way the lore is presented really only becomes clear if you start at the beginning.

Fourth- it's totally optional. Lore diving is useful for immersion and roleplaying purposes, but is completely unnecessary beyond that. You can enjoy the game without knowing anything more than the bare-bone basics. It's an additional bonus, not a requirement.

For the record, Bethesda distributes both Arena and Daggerfall for free off its website.

 

[Ryallen]

I wouldn't say that it's bad, so to speak. I don't know enough of it to form an opinion. There is undoubtedly a large amount of it to go around, to explain all of the books on it in the game. The problem is that it's uninteresting lore, as my lack of knowledge regarding it will show. The most like I looked up was that Alduin was the son of Akatosh, the God of Creation, but was at the same time WAS Akatosh, and beyond that, nothing interested me. None of it is made necessary, and it all seems so run of the mill. Gods represent various things and never interfere directly, only offering blessings to their followers and so forth. That's why my confidence that ESO was going to fail was so solid: because the main reason why people play the Elder Scrolls games isn't because of the lore. I never hear anyone talk about it. Ever. It's the gameplay that sold it, or more specifically, the freedom. MMOs are by their very nature restrictive, because of their leveling system and all of the grinding quests to do anything.

 

[Theminimanx]

I can't really answer this question, because I have no idea what you mean by good or bad lore. There's a lot of it, and exploring it can be very rewarding to some people, but that's about as close as I can get to an objective statement about the quality.

What I can say is that the Elder Scrolls games (Morrowind aside) don't do a good job of getting the player invested in the lore. There's always a lot of lore behind why the events of the game happen, but for the most part all the player will ever know is that there's some bad guy they need to stop. The games (again, Morrowind aside) never encourage you to find out about the lore behind everything.

One of the more intriguing things I came across in Oblivion was actually a castle high up in the mountains, which was full of blindfolded katana-wielding monks. I'd never seen or heard any mention of such a place or sect, and I still don't really know what they were about, but just randomly stumbling upon it made it so much more interesting.

I believe they are part of a thieves guild quest. But yes, they are a cool addition to the game, it is a fun quest. I think they should put things like that in newer games, but make them not part of quests so you have to stumble on them accidentally. That would be so cool.

Quoted for alert.

They're Moth Priests, who have trained for decades to be able to read Elder Scrolls. However, repeated readings of a Scroll will turn you blind, which is why these guys live underground in complete darkness. The specific location is a sort of retirement home for them. You actually get to work with one of these guys in Skyrim's Dawnguard DLC.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I wouldn't call it "bad," but like most Western fantasy it is derivative. It's just building on the momentum that Tolkien started with his work, occasionally going back to the Norse and Germanic myths that inspired Tolkien; again, most western fantasy does this.

To some derivative = bad. There is a large contingent of people who prefer sci-fi because it's more original, and another group of fantasy fans who are tired of the Tolkien-esque worlds of elves, humans, dwarves and ancient magic and want to see western fantasy branch out more.

To others, it's no big deal; these overarching tropes are accepted without issue.

So, like almost everything else, whether or not Elder Scrolls lore is good or bad depends who you ask.

Wait...what? This is false. The Elder Scrolls lore is not based on Tolkien's work. It is very different in terms of setting, races, moral position, thematics, geography etc. There is nothing comparable to Argonians, Khajit, or the Thalmor in Tolkeins work, and even things that seem familiar are played out very differently.

In fact I would go so far as to say that of all modern fantasy settings, the Elder Scrolls borrows the least from Tolkein.

I didn't say "based on." I said "derivative," as in "derived from."

Elder Scrolls clearly draws inspiration from Dungeon and Dragons settings which were absolutely based on Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Each of these steps removed changed politics, tone, themes, added new creatures and races, etc, but very the idea of a magical fantasy world with elves, dwarves, and dragons that resembles middle ages Europe? Tolkien pioneered that, and Western fantasy has, for the most part, only been building on that ever since. Not saying that this is a straight-up bad thing, just saying that many people who are familiar with Tolkien recognize this sort of derivative influence and are turned off by it; to them, this makes Elder Scrolls lore bad, which was the question in the OP.

 

[Fox12]

I wouldn't call it "bad," but like most Western fantasy it is derivative. It's just building on the momentum that Tolkien started with his work, occasionally going back to the Norse and Germanic myths that inspired Tolkien; again, most western fantasy does this.

I came here to say this. Bad isn't the word I would use. Lazy is probably more appropriate. Almost no western fantasy stories have had good lore, especially in video games. You hear about developers creating thousands of years of history for their game, but it's typically just variations of what Tolkien achieved. I don't think the Elder Scrolls are very different in this regard (though its better then something like, say, dragon age).

The only interesting fantasy lore I can think of in gaming is Dark Souls, since the writer actually did take time to come up with something totally original. I like the eastern take on western fantasy, since Japan is really breaking the mold, approaching the genre with a new set of eyes.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I think TES series has some of the richest and most expansive lore of most video game worlds (even if only on account of its longevity). While I'll grant that it could be considered no more original than any fantasy work, within the context of fantasy worlds I think it is original.

Beginning with the races, each have a storied past and interesting culture. They have developed ways of life, soldiering and combat, diet and reputations. It speaks well of Bethesda's world building over the years that we as gamers could immediately describe a khajit or dark elf, their homeland, clothing styles and so on, much like we can with real world cultures.

The religion/gods too are well detailed. From the realms of Oblivion, the Daedra, the Aedra and so on there is a lot of interesting lore and stories of the Princes and the place in Tamriel. The world itself has a rich history with conflicts, alliances, developments, architecture, advancements, literary and musical arts and more.

The sad thing with the last three games is that Morrowind, IMO, is by far and away the most interesting in terms of story and the player's role within it. Skyrim we were a fated "chosen one", already an adult by the time Alduin appeared but the return of the dragons didn't have nearly the impact of the the Nerevarine's story. Oblivion, the player was just a right place, wrong time situation.

The events of Morrowind occur at a very interesting time in Tamriel's history. The disappearance of the dwarves as a race happened literally in the time frame of the story and in Tribunal, we meet Almalexia, Vivec and Sotha Sil who were Dunmer before they were changed to the grey skinned, red-eyed dark elves. Nerevar was the vital character in all the events and his "rebirth" was similarly important. The fate of the dwemer, a race that is shrouded in mystery to this day, along with the fate of the dunmer were huge events and much more interesting than even Mehrunes Dagon's invasion and Alduin's return.

As someone already mentioned, there are always hints and information that when viewed in hindsight, do actually explain much of what happens in the next game(s). A lot of NPCs in morrowind spoke of things which, when considered after Skyrim's events are uncanny. In fact, it's for this reason that I personally suspect the next game to either be in Elswyrr or Summerset Isle. The general feeling I got from Skyrim was that those two places were the most significant in terms of the world at large (and thus, where the next game will take place).

 

[Zhukov]

"Bad"?

Not really. It's just dull and generic.

It would be better if the lore was more closely reflected in the games and their worlds. But as it is, the lore is something that happens in books and wiki pages, while the actual game worlds just do a stock standard fantasy RPG routine.

 

[rgrekejin]

I'm of two minds about the Elder Scrolls lore.

On one hand, I like the fact that the books you find are, at best, somewhat unreliable sources. It lends a nice realness to it that not everything you read can automatically be assumed to be true, and you need to keep in mind the ignorance or biases of the author may strongly influence what they're writing.

On the other hand, I don't really like that the lore has little in-game applicability. Most lore rarely is ever story-relevant (although, given the sheer volume of lore that exists, I realize that's probably impossible). But what I really hate is when the lore actively clashes with what I'm experiencing in-game, like when a legendary eons-old artifact of untold power turns out to be less useful than some piece of junk I crafted half an hour ago, or some random leveled loot I scooped up from a run-of-the-mill brigand. This happens surprisingly often, and I'm not sure it's a problem with the lore so much as it is a problem with the game-lore interface.

 

[Muspelheim]

I rather like it. It's ambiguous, contradictory and quite a lot of it is fictional in its own world. It feels like something that has grown organically, rather than clear, well-defined facts layed down by the lore department. In most games, all that you read or hear is true, and describe everything as it is, typically when you need to know it. In Elder Scrolls lore, it's often difficult to be quite sure.

The problem is that is isn't brought across very well in the game world. I'm rather happy that you aren't patiently spoonfed 100% correct lore at every step, and I like how most of it requires some reading and cross-referencing to really get in to. But, for instance, when the great Alessian dynasty mentioned in a lot of material doesn't leave a single trace behind around the area that used to be its very centre, you just can't quite get into the feeling that it was a real place during a very different time in a familiar place.

I wouldn't call it "bad," but like most Western fantasy it is derivative. It's just building on the momentum that Tolkien started with his work, occasionally going back to the Norse and Germanic myths that inspired Tolkien; again, most western fantasy does this.

I came here to say this. Bad isn't the word I would use. Lazy is probably more appropriate. Almost no western fantasy stories have had good lore, especially in video games. You hear about developers creating thousands of years of history for their game, but it's typically just variations of what Tolkien achieved. I don't think the Elder Scrolls are very different in this regard (though its better then something like, say, dragon age).

The only interesting fantasy lore I can think of in gaming is Dark Souls, since the writer actually did take time to come up with something totally original. I like the eastern take on western fantasy, since Japan is really breaking the mold, approaching the genre with a new set of eyes.

All work is deriative. All of it, in some way or another.

It's a new set of eyes, but that doesn't make it totally original. It means we have much less experience with the inspirational material, and that the source is far away enough that it doesn't become as obvious as the usual Tolkienesque sources.

It's a very fresh take, and it likely took a fair bit of work to write, shape and present. But it's not anything entirely new plucked from the Ether, even if a fresh spin of things can create the same feeling.

 

[R Man]

I didn't say "based on." I said "derivative," as in "derived from."

Elder Scrolls clearly draws inspiration from Dungeon and Dragons settings which were absolutely based on Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Each of these steps removed changed politics, tone, themes, added new creatures and races, etc, but very the idea of a magical fantasy world with elves, dwarves, and dragons that resembles middle ages Europe? Tolkien pioneered that, and Western fantasy has, for the most part, only been building on that ever since. Not saying that this is a straight-up bad thing, just saying that many people who are familiar with Tolkien recognize this sort of derivative influence and are turned off by it; to them, this makes Elder Scrolls lore bad, which was the question in the OP.

Semantics.

The Elder Scrolls lore, as culminated from the last three games, which are where the series gained much of its present popularity, is quite different from anything Tolkien wrote. The way the game portrays politics, conflict, and moral ambiguity are at, on a basic level, very different from what is present in Tolkien. Morrowind is the perfect example. All the Great Houses have their good and bad points, their own agendas, and they are ruled by a physical god who may or may not have murdered his best friend for that power, and then stolen his wife. Not to mention the physical setting of Morrowind, which resembles the Middle-East, a Semetic setting, not a Fantasy European one.

Skyrim has quite a few of these situations too. In the Civil War questline it is quite ambiguous who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The Empire are a domineering political force. But they are also racially tolerant and support economic growth. The Stormcloaks are defending their homeland against an oppressors...but they tend to be racist and discriminatory. But again, there are many shades of grey. To top it all off, we have the Thalmor, who are Nazi Elves. Nazi Elves are not something that features prominently in Tolkien's work.

Now, I'm not saying that the Elder Scrolls was not influence by Tolkien or by D an D. It most assuredly is. But describing it as 'derivative' and claiming 'It's just building on the momentum that Tolkien started' and that players are 'tired of the Tolkien-esque worlds of elves, humans, dwarves and ancient magic and want to see western fantasy branch out more.' gives the impression that the Elder Scrolls series is more similar to Tolkien's work than it actually is. It ignores everything that makes the setting unique, and all the other inspirations for the writers, including history itself.

I should also point out that the relationship between D and D and Tolkien is more uncertain than it first appears. Gary Gygax, I don't know how he felt about The Lord of the Rings, but he was not so keen on borrowing stuff from it. Apparently he only put in races like 'Hobbits' to cash in. His real influences were different, and Dungeons and Dragons probably owes more to Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft than most others. The same is probably also true of The Elder Scrolls. Actually, considering Dragonborn, definitely.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I don't really know what officially constitutes good and bad lore. For me, it's when it's interesting enough to make you want to read about it and discover more for hours. For me, ES lore does that very well. It lays out a fascinating universe with enough mystery and ambiguity to keep you wondering.

Personally, I think it has some of the best lore in gaming. Pretty sure this is largely an opinion thing though.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I didn't say "based on." I said "derivative," as in "derived from."

Elder Scrolls clearly draws inspiration from Dungeon and Dragons settings which were absolutely based on Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Each of these steps removed changed politics, tone, themes, added new creatures and races, etc, but very the idea of a magical fantasy world with elves, dwarves, and dragons that resembles middle ages Europe? Tolkien pioneered that, and Western fantasy has, for the most part, only been building on that ever since. Not saying that this is a straight-up bad thing, just saying that many people who are familiar with Tolkien recognize this sort of derivative influence and are turned off by it; to them, this makes Elder Scrolls lore bad, which was the question in the OP.

Semantics.

The Elder Scrolls lore, as culminated from the last three games, which are where the series gained much of its present popularity, is quite different from anything Tolkien wrote. The way the game portrays politics, conflict, and moral ambiguity are at, on a basic level, very different from what is present in Tolkien. Morrowind is the perfect example. All the Great Houses have their good and bad points, their own agendas, and they are ruled by a physical god who may or may not have murdered his best friend for that power, and then stolen his wife. Not to mention the physical setting of Morrowind, which resembles the Middle-East, a Semetic setting, not a Fantasy European one.

Skyrim has quite a few of these situations too. In the Civil War questline it is quite ambiguous who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The Empire are a domineering political force. But they are also racially tolerant and support economic growth. The Stormcloaks are defending their homeland against an oppressors...but they tend to be racist and discriminatory. But again, there are many shades of grey. To top it all off, we have the Thalmor, who are Nazi Elves. Nazi Elves are not something that features prominently in Tolkien's work.

Now, I'm not saying that the Elder Scrolls was not influence by Tolkien or by D an D. It most assuredly is. But describing it as 'derivative' and claiming 'It's just building on the momentum that Tolkien started' and that players are 'tired of the Tolkien-esque worlds of elves, humans, dwarves and ancient magic and want to see western fantasy branch out more.' gives the impression that the Elder Scrolls series is more similar to Tolkien's work than it actually is. It ignores everything that makes the setting unique, and all the other inspirations for the writers, including history itself.

I should also point out that the relationship between D and D and Tolkien is more uncertain than it first appears. Gary Gygax, I don't know how he felt about The Lord of the Rings, but he was not so keen on borrowing stuff from it. Apparently he only put in races like 'Hobbits' to cash in. His real influences were different, and Dungeons and Dragons probably owes more to Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft than most others. The same is probably also true of The Elder Scrolls. Actually, considering Dragonborn, definitely.

It most certainly is not semantics. "Based on" and "derived from" are two very different things when you're talking about the inspiration at work behind storytelling.

Look, if Tolkien hadn't done what he did, Elder Scrolls, as it stands today, would not exist. I'm repeating myself, but here's how it works. Tolkien's work pioneered so much of what we consider "normal" about western fantasy. Fantasy stories set in a world resembling Middle-Age Europe? Tolkien did it first. Dwarves? They were originally featured in Norse mythology, and Tolkien's dwarves are a bit different than their Norse myth counterparts, but when you think of "dwarves in a work of fantasy fiction" as short, strong, crafting creatures who live in mountain strongholds? Tolkien did it first. Elves? Before Tolkien, when you said "elf," people tended to think of Santa Claus' helpers, or the Keebler elves: small, more fairy-like creatures. The idea of Elves as tall, ethereal, enlightened beings? Tolkien did it first.

Later generations, leading all the way up today, have added, subtracted, subverted this basic setup. They've gone very different directions in terms of tone, themes, history, politics. They've added in elements from other influences, such as Lovecraft and anime, but most Western fantasy settings still have the basic Middle-Earth skeleton underneath--this is a point of consensus that literary academics have strongly agreed upon for years--and Elder Scrolls is no exception.

Those who are well-versed in the literature of the 20th recognize this influence; some of those people consider modern Western fantasy settings that have this recognizable Middle-Earth skeleton derivative (not "based on," because that is something quite different) of Tolkien's work and would consider the Elder Scrolls lore as "bad," or at the very least "lazy" or "unoriginal." This was the point of this thread and my original response: the OP pointed out that the ES series has its critics, and I was providing an explanation for many of those critics.

I've made my points, multiple times in fact. Your inclination to dismiss my points (points that a literary academic vanguard has my back on), and the method by which you last dismissed my points (disregarding the difference between a system of storytelling basis and a system of storytelling influence as "semantics") tells me that this conversation will go no where.

If you quote me again and prove me wrong (bring something new and constructive to the discourse), I may reply. If you just try to argue your side more, I will not reply.

 

[erbkaiser]

I wouldn't say TES lore is that bad, but it is very inconsistent throughout the games. They pretty much reinterpret (or ignore) the previous games' canon each game.

I haven't played the first two, but Oblivion isn't consistent with Morrowind when it comes to things like how the Imperial City is described, or the diseases, or the layout of Cyrodil, etc..
And Skyrim is even less in agreement with Oblivion and Morrowind in many aspects.

A pretty easy example is vampirism: the diseases not only have different names in the games, they behave very differently, too.

Not sure if a better consistency would be the best thing though, they probably never considered actually having a game in Skyrim when the province was first described (again, not counting Arena).

 

[Rolaoi]

I liked the lore. It was interesting. Like the Black Marshes or Valenwood or Akavir. Especially Akavir, I would love to see a good TES game set there. Stuff such as the old lore about the Imperials being jungle Romans was cool too. It all feels like some amazing fusion of Conan the Barbarian style fantasy with Tolkien style fantasy.

Unfortunately, aside from Morrowind, the series has largely played it painfully safe as far as lore goes to the point that it erodes the actual stories. It waters down, hides, or retcons everything fun and unique about the Elder Scrolls for generic high fantasy.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Unfortunately, aside from Morrowind, the series has largely played it painfully safe as far as lore goes to the point that it erodes the actual stories. It waters down, hides, or retcons everything fun and unique about the Elder Scrolls for generic high fantasy.

Was pretty much just going to say that.

TES's lore is rich, deep, nuanced, and wonderfully, metaphysically convoluted - it's just Bethesda, post-Morrowind, seem not to give a toss about any of that depth, potential, or flat out weirdness. The Dragonborn DLC's another perfect example of this: the first [recorded] and the last dovahkiin meeting? Won't that be awesome! What stories they could tell, given their positions in history...

...unfortunately, all that idea amounted to was another tedious villain, shown mostly in cameos. Bethesda just don't seem to be able to understand the material they could draw from. So they don't.

These days, TES's lore is very much split between what it was/could be - and the actual games they sell. I still really enjoyed Skyrim as a game, but it was remarkably vanilla and conservative.

 

[DoPo]

A pretty easy example is vampirism: the diseases not only have different names in the games, they behave very differently, too.

As far as this goes, I remember it mentioned as far as Morrowind (in out-of-game sources, can't remember if there is in-game material on it) - the vampires are different in different regions of the world. Which I think makes sense, in reality - it's not like everybody is the same, even diseases have variations. And vampirism is way, way more than just a flu or something: after an incubation period, it creates sentient undead who are carriers of it and get various powers, weir weaknesses as well as immortality.

It very clearly is a lot more complicated than even normal diseases. Whether its nature is biological, magical, otherwise mystical or whatever, the complexity would make it more likely to change. Especially if it needs to adapt. It could even be changed from the outside force - it's Tamriel, after all - pretty much everybody and their dog can cast magic, if they want to, not to mention how much more stuff is out there. And any change is going to be rather improbable to be propagated to everybody around the entire world. Unless there is somebody who changes the entire nature of vampirism (which could be a Daedra), then expecting all vampires to be affected the same is rather unreasonable.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I like all the games' main stories, but I feel like they've been falling off since Morrowind. In Morrowind the main story enthralled me and everything else was just a fun distraction, in Oblivion I liked main quest and side quests roughly equally, and in Skyrim I found the main quest to have the most boring story of all the game's questlines. Granted, you get to catch an emporer body in one of Skyrim's side questlines, so maybe those were just so dope that the main quest seemed boring to me by comparison.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Unless there is somebody who changes the entire nature of vampirism (which could be a Daedra), then expecting all vampires to be affected the same is rather unreasonable.

All vamprisim comes from a daedra, Molag Bal specifically.

He created it to give Arkay the finger, by breaking the cycle of life and death by creating undeath.

But all of it comes from Bal, he just apparently liked to create lots of different kinds of vamprisism, just like Hircine created many variations of lycanthropy, ranging from werebears, to werecrocodiles, to werevultures, to the standard werewolf.