Oblivion talk:Francois Motierre

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

Safe storage[edit]

After he is driven out of his house and moves away, can you store things in those containers?--Imperial Scum 21:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Never mind. I just did it and you can't use the containers in the house or the containers in the basement. To bad to because that is a nice house.--Imperial Scum 16:52, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Request for verification[edit]

The paragraph listing the contents of Motierre's house currently claims that "the table in the center [of the 3rd floor] holds a copy of The Five Tenets." When I played through the game there was a copy of The Brothers of Darkness there instead. Is this article mistaken, or is the book in that location random? (I don't think I have any mods installed that would have affected the book.) Gardimuer 23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Verification done - and you are absolutely correct. Nice catch! --Krusty 00:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Related or sharing family name?[edit]

As of the most recent edit to the page it is changed from that "is possible that Francois is related" to "Francois is related".

The closest thing I find to a source about a possible relation is Babette's advice when asking her about your contract during The Silence Has Been Broken. She says: "The man you need to speak with, his name is Motierre? That's a very old and powerful Breton family, firmly established in Cyrodiil. Most curious …"

She does not explicitly conclude they are related, only stating that there is a powerful Breton family with that name.

The article about Amaund Motierre seems to indirectly conclude from Babette's statement that they are related, while the article about Mirabelle Motierre only states that they share family name. —MortenOSlash (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Motierre family is an infamous Cyrodilic family (see Lore:Motierre). To assume that one isn't related to the other is a bit like calling into question the heritage of a Septim. The familial and Dark Brotherhood links between these NPCs is ample proof that it's more than just a shared surname (even though obviously nothing in Oblivion implies this, since the lore is gonna be retroactively applied for an older game). —Legoless (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying someone with the surname Rockefeller is related to the well-known family. I know back then how the populations of places wasn't as large and people knew each other, and how today that's different as there are so many people around, but I believe it is still speculation. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 19:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that they may not be related is not, in fact, like calling into question the heritage of a Septim. This is because the Septimes have a genealogy. This means that you can trace how they are related. The Motierres have no genealogy and the only connections between them are that they are all in their Dark Brotherhood questlines and are named 'Motierre' It was probably Bethesda and Zenimax's intent that each one was a reference to the last, and to imply that they were related. But no-one in Skyrim mentions Francois, either by name or as the guy who contracted the Dark Brotherhood to fake his death, and quite obviously, neither Oblivion or Skyrim mentions Mirabelle by name or indirectly. It goes without saying that Mirabelle never mentions these relations of hers from the future. "The familial links" - what are you trying to pull? You're arguing that they are related, and you use them being related as proof that they're related?! It is heavily implied that they're a family, yes. But is it confirmed? No, no it's not. - Kinetically-Interlinked Nirnian Multi-User NthGen Exoform (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I second what Legoless says. If somebody named Rockefeller comes and says "we Rockefellers are an old and powerful business family", do you really think "nope, probably not a Rockefeller"? Hence the whole lore page for http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Motierre . I think you're overestimating the need for proof in this case. I would understand if you had reasonable doubt as to these people belonging to the same family, but there is no reasonable doubt is there? I mean what would that be? That ZOS hints they might be part of the same family, but actually they decided she isn't. Does this really make more sense than assuming they all belong to Motierre family? I guess not. Tib (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

() Do we really need to debate this? It's directly stated in all three games that they are part of an important family. In both Skyrim and DB the NPCs are described as part of a wealthy family. In Oblivion it's established that they have a family crypt in Chorrol, and the Motierre in vanilla ESO is found standing in the same building - which was enough for it to be listed on ON:Easter Eggs, a page held to a very high standard of consensus. It is not speculation that they are part of the same family, it is stated fact. —Legoless (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we might need to debate this. This is like asserting it is the truth on the pages just because it's likely to be the case, which is speculation no matter how likely it seems.
To assume they are related on the basis of probability is like saying a film company used a puppet for many characters in different episodes of a television series they produced, just because the puppet appears to people as having had some alterations to the face, brows, et cetera. And this is speculation. Because people have dropped puppet heads before, and because they are delicate, they smash into pieces and require a reconstruction from scratch. There you go. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 22:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Dragon Guard, you've struggled many times in the past with defining what counts as unwarranted speculation on the wiki. This is one such time. Unless you can find evidence of any other family of Motierres, I think it's entirely justified to conclude that it's the same one being talked about over and over again. It's the only logical conclusion, and an overly semantic note stating that "it is possible" that these clearly referential NPCs are related is a terrible disservice to readers. —Legoless (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Legoless, are you suggesting/implying it is speculation? 'Warranted' speculation? I think so. If so, then to say for certain that they are related is nonsense. This is concluding on the basis of probability like the puppet scenario I mentioned earlier. Let's think of a time from something where to conclude something is the case of speculation...
Ahh yes... In the film Thunderbird 6, Skyship One, an airship, goes around the world. FAB 1, a Rolls-Royce, is shown to enter the airship around the beginning of the film prior to Skyship One taking off for flight. It visits several countries, one of which is Switzerland, and the last we see of FAB 1 is it driving back towards (not boarding) Skyship One when it lands in the country. Naturally, people will assume it is heading towards the airship to board it. Later on in the film, Skyship One's gravity compensators fail and, losing height, it hits a tower situated in a missile base, and balances precariously on the tower. Ultimately, the tower breaks under the airship's weight. Both it and Skyship One crash to the ground, and the latter is consumed in a fiery explosion. And naturally, people will assume that anything on board will be destroyed along with the airship. But we never see FAB 1 board or be on Skyship One in its last appearance, therefore any conclusions about it being destroyed when the airship crashes into the ground, or as a consequence of the following explosions, are complete nonsense. See what I mean? DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
And even if it was on board the airship, it is very, very unlikely to have survived the fiery explosions, but to say it was certainly destroyed would be nonsense too. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 20:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

() Legoless I think you mean ON:Elder Scrolls Historical References, not Easter Eggs. I'd also like to point out that the Spectral Assassin makes no note whatsoever regarding of Motierre, even though he has been know to do that in the past (particularly with his Shadowmere dialogue). I'd also like to point out the burden of proof is entirely on proving that they are related, and not on proving that they aren't. All that being said: I entirely agree that given the bulk of evidence that it's almost certain that they are indeed related. Would it be wrong to say "Francois is almost certainly related"? It's entirely accurate, and it's certainly not a "terrible disservice". -- MetaCthulhu (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better to try and find a different phrasing then: one that states the facts, but does not claim anything we are uncertain of. Discussions about uncertainties and including them in articles is not a good style to go for, it's always better to state "this is" rather than "this almost certainly is".
So, let's try something that is a fact and not uncertainty. How about simply stating something like "Among other Motierres are Mirabelle and Armaund who appear in respectively ESO and Skyrim"? Let the reader decide their more precise family ties. Tib (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the burden of proof here lies squarely on those claiming that the Motierre family repeatedly mentioned by all four of these NPCs is not the same family. There already is proof that they are related, since they all claim to be members of this aristocratic family. Unless and until we see evidence of any other Motierres, this is conclusive enough to state as fact. It's not only common sense in terms of fiction, but also from an objective in-universe perspective, which is what we always try to apply. The Spectral Assassin observation is a non-argument; maybe it would make sense for Lachance to mention that he personally killed a member of the family before, but the fact that he doesn't cannot be inferred as anything meaningful.
I have no idea what that Thunderbird example is meant to convey, but let me try a simpler comparison: the thief Lokir says that he is from Rorikstead. We know that Rorikstead refers to a relatively well-known village. Every piece of writing and dialogue we have seems to indicate that there is only one Rorikstead in existence. Logically speaking, it is entirely possible that there exists a second town called Rorikstead somewhere on Tamriel, and there's nothing ruling that out. But for us to say that Lokir is "almost certainly" from the little village west of Whiterun is total nonsense. With no evidence to the contrary, it can be stated as fact that Lokir refers to this specific village. It can also be stated that the infamous family Motierre, referred to in three separate games, is the same specific family. As such, all of those NPCs are members of the same family, which means they're related. This is proof beyond any reasonable doubt, and belabouring this point is most definitely a disservice to readers. —Legoless (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I have to put on my Wikilawyering hat: "Even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material)."(Of course that's in the lore section, so technically doesn't apply here, and of course it has an exception which this paged obviously fulfils, and of course you already know all this, you being an Admin and all, but I feel the need to mention it here anyway so my next point isn't out of the blue)
Basically what I'm saying is a service to the readers is happening here, because logical leaps, even ones justified and correct like this one (at least by my scale, I think DG might disagree with me though), need to be challenged. Helps keep out the riff raff. As for the exact wording: meh, mainly semantics; as long as a note about the relationship is added somewhere I'll be happy. --MetaCthulhu (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I truly don't believe this constitutes original research in any way, which is what that lore guideline tries to prohibit. It isn't a series of statements leading to a conclusion, but rather repeated references to the same aristocratic Breton family. It's not simply a shared family name; all four of them directly state that they're part of the family. There isn't any conclusion that needs to be drawn, they literally tell us that they're related. They don't need to namedrop a specific centuries-old ancestor to confirm this. It would be original research to assume that they're related by blood because they're all Bretons or something—after all, even the Septims have a gap in the genealogy—but they're all related by name, and that can be stated as fact in this situation. —Legoless (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
All four of them directly state that? Please get some quotes by the characters that back up your assertion. Thx. DRAGON GUARD(TALK) 19:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, here you go:
"I suppose I get that from my family heritage. The Motierres are rich, powerful, and blessed with good looks and a wicked sense of humor." -Mirabelle
"Not even they can chase the Motierres from Chorrol!" -Lisien, standing in the chapel that housed the Motierre crypt in Oblivion
"Ah yes, the Undercroft. My family members are buried here, you know." -Francois talking about his family
"I once slept in the Chorrol Chapel Undercroft. It's damp, cold... and cursed! Getting Motierre out of there may be a challenge." -Antoinetta Marie on the crypt
"The man you need to speak with, his name is Motierre? That's a very old and powerful Breton family, firmly established in Cyrodiil." -Babette on Amaund
Legoless (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

() Hmm... Well, it strongly suggests that it is the case - that they are related and belong to the same family, but that's just my opinion. It's almost as if the creators are trying to get people to think that, but because there is no definite proof it is speculation. --Dragon Guard (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

With all the evidence that they are related, it'd almost be speculation to suggest that there's a chance they are not all from the same family and that there multiple families of Motierre's. I'd agree that the creators probably are trying to get us to think they are related, and as such, we should assume they are given the information about them. I get the idea of wanting to avoid using absolutes, but it seems very clear cut that all of them are from the same families given the lines Legoless provided above, the connections they have to the Dark Brotherhood, and the naughtiness of the family members as well. Thus I think the note is fine as is. Forfeit (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
So because there's a high chance of them being from the same family, it is almost speculation to say they aren't? I have yet to see any definite evidence of them being related. For example, if they had a family heirloom that François gave to the player in 'Oblivion, and Amaund gave it to the player in Skyrim, with him saying something along the lines of er.... "This belonged to François, my relative.", then we would see a connection. --Dragon Guard (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If they were not related, I'd think Bethesda wouldn't go through such efforts to suggest they were. I'm going to cast in my vote with Legoless and those who have put forward evidence that very convincingly creates the implication that they are indeed related.
The issue here, at least from my interpretation of the discussion, is that the Motierres mentioned are not directly related to each other, say as great-great-great-grandfather or something like that, but that they can be genealogically linked back to one common source and are all descendants of one common ancestor. That makes them related, if even distantly. I believe that the evidence put forth substantiates that. -damon  talkcontribs 00:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
For what it might be worth, I find the evidence so far given enough to be persuaded sufficiently to accept the family ties. With an increasingly amount of both prominent and less prominent Motierres, most with ties to Chorrol and most seemingly sharing unhealthy ties of different kind with the Dark Brotherhood, I am not going to oppose. —MortenOSlash (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The purported familial relationship between the characters is purely speculative. I have yet to set eyes on an official's report unequivocally stating: "These people belong to the same family!". --Dragon Guard (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Dragon Guard is right. There is no proof that they ARE related. They simply share a last name. This is obviously deliberate, and intended to be a reference but it is never directly stated that they are related.. - KINMUNE TALK 02:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
To an extent, I see the point that there's no absolute proof that they're the same family in some cases, but at the same time, I think we really have to take context into account. This isn't a world with 7 billion people in it who have evolved randomly over time. This is a human-created world with only a couple of thousand people in it, far fewer than that who happen to live in, or mention family in, Chorrol and who share the name Motierre and are invariably involved with the Dark Brotherhood. If the game designers didn't intend for you to make a link, I think it's a safe bet that they would've stuck in dialogue or story points to that effect (e.g., "Hi, I'm Robin Motierre—no relation.")
For most of these people, as Legoless' quotes prove, it can be stated unequivocally that they're part of the Motierre family, since they say so themselves. A statement like Babette's, however, while it states that the Motierres are a powerful family, it isn't absolute proof that Amaund is actually part of the family. So, unless one of those other statements can be seen as tenuous, I'd say that for Amaund only, we should follow MetaCthulu and Tib's advice and choose less conclusive wording. For example, "it can be inferred that" or as they said, "is almost certainly". Robin Hood  (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Amaund is a confirmed member of the Elder Council though. That makes him a nobleman, and if you're a noble with the name Motierre there's only one noble family you can belong to...
As for the "official report" desired by Dragon Guard and Kinmune, we will never be seeing something like that since it's already painfully obvious. Noble families don't just "share" names with randomers; try to find a von Habsburg that wasn't a member of the dynasty. There's nothing directly stating that Fasil Umbranox is related to Corvus Umbranox, but they hold the same seat and have the same name so of course they're related. There simply is not room for a second Motierre family, and that seems to be your only argument here. —Legoless (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Break 1[edit]

In response to Robin Hood, this world may seem underpopulated, but the key thing to understand in that case would be that the world is to scale. It has been stated by Bethsheba Swoftworks that the gameworlds are meant to convey the idea that the world is actually much larger. It may not seem conceivable that there are many more people, but there are. - KINMUNE TALK 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that fully, KINMUNE. That's been a thing all the way back to the days of Arena, because obviously a city doesn't have only a few dozen people in it. Nevertheless, I don't think game designers do very much randomly. If they put people in the game with the same name and several points of similarity, I think it's because they intend for you to make those connections. It's not like in the real world where most people can readily find someone with their same family name who isn't related to them at all. If this debate were about two people with the same family name, but no other evidence to link them at all, my opinion would be very different, but it seems plain to me here that the various Motierres are intended to be linked to the same Motierre family, and the quotes Legoless provided would appear to prove that. Robin Hood  (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Legoless, there's so much to connect the Motierres that it's absurd not to assume they're related. It's true that a single word can change the meaning or implications of an entire sentence, and that we need to be careful not to make false or dubious claims. It's also true that the family relationship has never been outright stated in-game, but it's implied so heavily that an overt admission is unnecessary. There's a lot to strongly suggest that they're related and nothing to the contrary, so the going assumption has to be that they are, in fact, related. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 08:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I am in no way, shape, or form, embarrassed to assert that there is no concrete proof to confirm that they are related. It is still speculation. Obviously, it is discrete in regards to whether they are related - 0 means they are not, and 1 means that they are. The thing that is happening is: players of the games are so convinced by what the games suggest that, for them, the evidence causes the same effect as it being a 1. In other words, people are just treating it as if they are related, despite what it actually is. --Dragon Guard (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are technically correct, it isn't overtly stated. That's not the issue. The issue is that the implication of them all being from the same family is so strong that concrete proof isn't necessary. They were clearly meant to be from the same family, and to assume otherwise is silly. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 20:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Making an assumption on the basis of probability? Use of the word "probably" indicates a value between 0 and 1, ToR. If the creators can state that certain characters with the name "Motierre" are part of the same family, I would be more than happy to accept their response as true, as they are the creators of the characters. Besides, they know for certain. --Dragon Guard (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you please refer directly to the other Motierre families and when/how they are mentioned. If you can't point out any indication that there is more than one family, I will consider following replies trolling and request to issue a formal warning for that. This is not funny anymore, and I hope there's a rule for this. It's rather disrespectful to waste others time, time that could have been used for something productive. Tib (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

() Nothing in this discussion qualifies as trolling, it's just a difference of opinion and/or a lack of clarity. Regardless, I think it's clear at this point that we've said everything that can be said on the issue. There is no clear consensus to support a change in how we approach mentions of the Motierres, and at this point we're just rehashing the same arguments, so any further discussion on this matter serves little purpose. I suggest we all just move on from this and not have it turn into a whole big thing. Zul do onikaanLaan tinvaak 01:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the point of this discussion was to get the family details added to the pages. However, the pages for Amaund and Mirabelle Motierre, along with this one, are still inconsistent with each other. Whatever the consensus, the pages should probably say the same thing. - KINMUNE TALK 01:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion was specifically about this edit, and it seems to me like the consensus is to keep it as-is. The notes on the other two pages seem fine to me, but I don't think there'd be a problem if someone wants to amend them based on the outcome of this discussion. However, I concur with Thuum's assessment that this discussion has reached its natural conclusion. I think everyone's voiced their opinion at this stage. —Legoless (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll just get a few points down. Well, we must maintain a consistency over the pages; Mirabelle's is at odds with François'. I actually think arguing for them not being related would be easier even though there may be evidence to suggest they are, and that depends on how you see it: it is never directly stated that they are. A majority of the people who have responded here believe that they are related. Would anybody assert that they are in good faith? Probably. Am I asserting that they aren't in good faith? Yes. I definitely wouldn't do so in bad faith.
Tib: I'll talk about whatever I want whenever I want. Are you implying that you think I am saying these things for laughs and to troll? Well, from the dictionary, a troll is "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting." ("one solution is to make a troll's postings invisible to the rest of community once they've been recognized"). My posts meet none of these criteria which totally disqualifies me from doing so to troll. Please Assume Good Faith. --Dragon Guard (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Dragon Guard, this discussion is over. The community has clearly reached a consensus that they are related. In regards to Tib, she has realized her mistake and if you look at her talk page you'll see that she realized her mistake and was in fact going to apologize to you. If it offends you so much that Mirabelle's page is inconsistent with the others, you can edit it so that it is consistent. - KINMUNE TALK 12:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Edit it so that it is consistent? No way. As far as I'm concerned, they are not related. And that is how I will always see it. Just because a consensus has been established that they are related doesn't mean we have to slavishly edit the Mirabelle page; this is not stipulated in the consensus. Shame! --Dragon Guard (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)