Morrowind talk:Incident in Necrom

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Paralysis[edit]

Anybody else notice that she paralyzes a vampire even though it is common knowledge that they are immune? Any other possible skills that prevent movement? — Unsigned comment by 124.186.172.196 (talk) on 5 March 2008

Yea, plus she is using an "Invisibility" spell while manipulating objects - which doesn't work as well. -Meisterdieb 01:34, 29 December 2008 (EST)
Right. When I read it, I thought they were being lured into a trap, but it turns out she was so good that they couldn't resist it. I think she might have been a master at Invisibility too, or had an especially strong Chameleon spell. To answer your other question, there are other spells which restrict movement, Destruction and Alteration have Damage Attribute and Burden, but the story makes clear that she's a master of Illusion, and it's even a skill book. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 05:13, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Last revision[edit]

Someone added a trivia section about paralysis and vampires and how the reality doesn't fit as depicted in this book. That change got edited back with the edit summary: "no additions to books". Which way is it the right policy? Either no additions at all or allow them. Because for one we already have these additions, haven't we? All the subtitles (in this case: A story about an illusionist) are already an addition. Secondly, some facts or bits of trivia seem -maybe not necessary but at least- useful; in this case the total discrepancy between the vampires in the book (paralysis possible) and the actual vampires(paralysis not possible). -Meisterdieb 19:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

As stated in our Style Guide for Books:
The text of all books should be entered exactly as it appears in the game.
For good measure, it's also mentioned on our Spelling guidelines -- and probably in a few other places within the site's guidelines. The only acceptable changes to the book text are formatting changes: adding links to other relevant articles, adding {{sic}} tags to typographical errors, etc.
"Changes" such as displaying the book's title, author, and description at the top of the page or the infobox in the top right corner of the box are necessary to make the page useful for readers. Otherwise the page would just be an out-of-context stream of text without any explanation, and without any possible way to provide required facts (i.e., that the book is an illusion skill book). The page formatting is used to differentiate such additions from the original text. The book's actual text is all displayed in a different font (a serif-style font); the only place that font is used anywhere on the site is for book text. Furthermore, a horizontal dividing line is used to separate the book text from the introductory information. Again, this is not just something was arbitrarily applied to this one book: it's a format that is used for all of the hundreds of books on the site. The format was developed based on numerous community discussions that have taken place over the years.
On the version of the page that you're discussing, a "Trivia" section was added to the book's text. That section is displayed in the font reserved for book text; readers have no way to recognize that the text is not part of the in-game text. There are proper ways to add notes to books (so that they are displayed in the correct font and separated from the main text by a dividing line). However, I'm not really convinced that this note is important enough to be given such a treatment. It's a somewhat minor discrepancy in a book that is considered in-game to be a work of fiction. It's more common for such points to be discussed here, on the talk page, where it's easy for readers who are interested to find the information but yet it's pretty clear that the discussion is not part of the book. And in this case, there already was a comment on the talk page. --NepheleTalk 21:03, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Ah, I didn't see that. It's obvious to delete such an addition, especially if the reason is that its formatting might lead an unsuspecting newcomer to think that passage was part of the original text. But otherwise -and if shown to be clearly not a part of the original- does anything speak against having said trivia added again? I for one find such tidbits very interesting and part of my reason for coming to UESP. -Meisterdieb 00:08, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
I concur with what Meisterdieb said - it is an interesting fact, and I don't see why it shouldn't be there. I added a note, but it was reverted claiming that this was "explained away" (which I don't see, Nephele only said she was "not really convinced"). Things like this are mentioned occasionally; for example, Dwarven Automatons makes note of an inconsistency in Ruins of Kemel-Ze. --95.222.29.126 02:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the full explanation for the reversion mentions the part that the book is a novel, a work of fiction, and as such is likely to contain errors in fact, and any errors in a work of fiction should not be expected to be true in real-life (or in this case the life of a Tamrielian). The Ruins of Kemel-Ze is not so much a work of fiction, but you neglect to mention that the book page itself does not mention the discrepancy. In that way you might then think that the Morrowind Vampires page would mention this, but we end up back at the work of fiction. The Morrowind Vampires page doesn't need to bother mentioning a discrepancy in a work of fiction because you shouldn't be taking everything said in a work of fiction as fact. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 10:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)