Sokolov is an aristocrat due largely in part to his high social rank.
aristocracy – a class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, especially the hereditary nobility.
aristocracy – the highest class in certain societies.
Yes, high society does indeed equate to the aristocracy.
Additionally, the category actually does need to go on Breanna's page too. Her case of once being an aristocrat is no different than Granny Rags', who has the category on her page, or from Corvo's case of once being a Loyalist.
@Piko: Those aren't my definitions. They're from dictionaries, far more credible than either you or I. 'Aristocracy' is an archaic term; no one uses that crap nowadays (duh). And yes, if the term were in full use today, Paris Hilton would indeed be considered an aristocrat, by the majority, no matter what your personal definition of the word happens to be.
What is an aristocrat to you, exactly? It'd be nice if you stated that much instead of just claiming reputable and much more credible sources are somehow wrong.
@Geist: Save for the ham-fisted Michelangelo analogy, literally everyone you mentioned is/was an aristocrat.
Aristocracy, in context of this game (which uses a rather archaic definition of the word, since it reflects a society from like 200 years ago), means mostly what was in your one definition called "hereditary nobility" and/or being from an influential/rich family. For example, big names like the Boyles, the Carmines, Pendletons, what have you. The royal family of course, so yes, Jessamine and Emily. That is the aristocracy as it is recognized by society in the game.
Sokolov, a foreigner, of common birth, as influential as he may be through his genius, I doubt they would recognize him as one of them. Same goes basically for Corvo, btw.
By that definition, Breanna is def not an aristocrat, neither is Delilah (except maybe for her coup supporters).
You could argue about Granny Rags there, I will leave that up to discussion.
The thing is, the word "aristocrat" is a fairly fluid term. Its description has ballooned since its initial use. It used to indicate lineage or hereditary nobility, thus the ruling class. The word broken in two, essentially, is "excellent" and "power".
However, the term has expanded to include "any class or group considered to be superior, as through education, ability, wealth, or social prestige." So, we're talking about the upper echelons of society.
However, as far as I'm concerned, is Paris Hilton an aristocrat, well, no, that doesn't sit well with me. If Mr. Smith next door won millions through a lucky lottery card, is he aristocracy, no.
The key, as I understand is that one would have to be part of a priveliged class or group. In other words, using the above example, not all wealthy people are aristocrats but all aristocrats are wealthy people. Is Bundry Rothwild an aristocrat, no. I see Sokolov as something of a lone ranger, regarding position and ability, so I'm not sure I see him as part of the aristocracy. However, feel free to convince me otherwise.
@Piko: He serves as the Royal Physician, though, spends a good amount of his time in Dunwall Tower like the posh guy he is, and is naturally of very high social standing. I agree that when I think of 'aristocracy', I initially think of lucky bastards born to wealth, but lineage isn't a prerequisite to being an aristocrat, in either context (real or in-game). All in all, how is Sokolov's case any different than Jindosh, who is categorized as such? Both are the handpicked intellectuals of their respective sovereigns.
Delilah becomes Empress. Rather or not people recognize her as such in-game is inconsequential. The title of Empress is the epitome of aristocracy.
The main point I'm making for Breanna is: If Corvo gets Category:Loyalists (even though he was betrayed by them and is no longer one) and GRags gets Category:Aristocrats (even though she no longer is one in D1), why doesn't Breanna get Category:Aristocrats? Do you feel those two categorical cases should be changed then (Corvo and GRags)?
@Geist: That's not what I said. I was indirectly stating that Yul Khulan and Thaddeus Campbell, who "hold exceptional rank and privileges", are aristocrats, which they are. Both are members of the "upper echelon of society", as Aristocrats puts it (and by wide-spread definition). You tellin' me this guy ain't an aristocrat? ... But yeah, I wasn't referring to Overseers in general at all.
... And it seems you have quite a temper when opposed. When faced with an argument, you have always immediately tried to indict me for some crime ("edit warring" and now "attitude"). You really are a biter. ;) I don't know where you were picking up an attitude from any of that. That Sokolov-Michaelangelo analogy simply was ham-fisted, misplaced and wrong. :/
@TheCrabShack: Wouldn't you say these people are part of a privileged upper class, in which they operate in? From Sokolov to Khulan and Campbell? Delilah? They all are operating members of high society, no? I mean, I don't know how else to see it.
I always saw Corvo more as a tool of the Loyalists, not a fully fledged member, so I would have no problem with removing him there. For Granny, as I've stated above, others will have to decide, for her I could see both.
Delilah is an ursuper, not an Empress.
Why Jindosh is categorized as such is beyond me, he is as wrongly placed there as Sokolov was. I would have removed him by now, but I wanted to come to a conclusion in this discussion before any more characters are added or removed.
And no, Campbell and Khulan are not aristocrats either, especially as clergy and aristocracy technically are two separate things. Also, given how Overseers initially become Overseers, they were probably not given to them from wealthy families to and made High Overseer for the reason of being high-born.
And yes, Sokolov serves as the Royal physician, that does grant him a high status and privileges, but not automatically an aristocratic status. Again, in context of this game and the time it is placed in, aristocracy is something you are born into or have been granted to by the ruling monarch. An official court painter who would paint all the paintings of the Royal family sure has privileges above those of a common peasant, and would be a member of the court, but NOT automatically an aristocrat/noble unless given an actual title by the monarch. Back in the days of the archaic sense of the word, there was quite clearly distinction between aristocrat and commoner, may they be as influential as they want to be.
Edit: A guild master for example would be a high-ranking, rich, influential member of society as well, but NOT an aristocrat.
There's a difference between being in a position of wealth and privilege and being in a position of political influence and strength. Like the way a member of a wealthy family differs from a highly influential judge.
Also, you seem to be a smart guy. The "losing the attitude" suggestion was not you opposing any idea or suggestion of mine, but rather your attitude with Piko.
"What is an aristocrat to you, exactly? It'd be nice if you stated that much instead of just claiming reputable and much more credible sources are somehow wrong."
That comes off asinine, truth be told, even if you didn't mean it that way. Constantly throwing attitude at people who disagree with you is not the way to win a debate.
Also, for the record... you admitted you were participating in the edit war regardless of who started it. Just so we're clear. ;)
A I said on a different discussion, I wouldn't count Delilah either. She is a bastard, so she is lowborn. She is not publically recognized by the Emperor so she spends her youth living in the servants quarters. She is even thrown into the streets after a relatively minor incident. Although she takes over Dunwall by force later, there is nothing legitimate about it and she does not really behave like high-society afterwards either, she basically continues what she did before - witch stuff and painting. She even lets Dunwall and Dunwall Tower fall apart. Basically, she had become Empress for the sake of being an empress. And, as I said elsewhere, royalty does not equal aristocracy but is a higher level.
Although Breanna was born an aristocrat, she gave that up willingly when she fled her family and as curator of the RC she should not count as one either. At the time of D2 there is nothign aristocrating about her anymore.
I don't feel like Jindosh should count either but I don't know enough about him.
Corvo and Sokolov are too lowborn, as is Delilah.
I agree with the clergy point on Campbell and Khulan, except if we were to find out that Khulan hails from an aristocratic family in Wei Gon or sth. like that, both should not count.
I see this whole conflict stems mostly from the fact that you, Recludam, use a more modern and also wider definition of the word aristocrats which would include each and any person that was wealthy and/or influential, while the others including myself are leaning towards a more archaic definition of the term which originates from a time where monarchies were the common form of government, and in which aristocracy was clearly distinguished from the common folk. In that sense of definition, aristocracy is something you are born into, marry into, or are granted a (hereditable) title by the ruling monarch.
And since the world of the Dishonored Franchise is an Empire with a ruling monarch, which clearly has aristocrats in the very old-fashioned sense of Dukes, Kings, Lords and Ladies, and an archaic society model overall, in which is frowned upon foreigners and upcomers (people were not happy about a low-born Serkonan as Royal Protector, remember?) I think that older, admittedly more narrow, definition should be used here.
According to that definition however, Sokolov is NOT an aristocrat. An influential member of the court, yes, but not an aristocrat.
Edit: And btw., Grizzhly is right, the royal family is considered above aristocracy.
@Piko, @TheCrabShack: Oookay... Yeah, the main contention does seem to be whether or not those with only non-hereditary high-standing qualify as aristocrats, and while I still believe that they do, you are right: those are the two contending stances.
I think people are conflating the all-encompassing high societal term 'aristocracy' with its much more distinct cousin British 'nobility', which makes sense, due to Dishonored's British influences. I've been trying to prove a point on the grounds of aristocracy – which could be socially climbed into in similar fashion to Delilah's rise, regardless of birth pedigree. The aristocracy precedes nobility, and there really is no 'archaic' variant of it. It's just a fancy word for "high society". I've been discussing this on that ground, as there has typically never been hereditary segregation amongst the aristocracy. If you make it, you make it. No matter your background; no matter people's opinion of your social standing.
Britain, however, was/is a bit more eugenic about their high society, to my knowledge. All points brought up against non-hereditary positions of influence in British nobility are reasonable. As the noble class was highly exclusive, most of these people wouldn't qualify as nobles at face-value. Even then, however, commoners attaining nobility through whatever means were far from unheard of.
Both 'aristocracy' and 'nobility' are highly interchangeable, in my opinion. However, the former is a more general term for "high society" ("the upper echelon of society") and the latter a more closed case. In both cases, high social standing could be attained, as I still believe it was with Sokolov, Jindosh, Delilah and Corvo. (Valid points have been made against Breanna and the High Overseers' exclusion, but as a result, I feel GRags' aristocratic status should be discussed; I don't see how she's an aristocrat anymore.)
As the world of Dishonored is its own starkly different realm and only very loosely based on Britain, among many other inspirations, I think the more fluid, inclusive definition of 'aristocracy' is more apt for the universe; they seem at least willing to recognize lowborn as aristocrats if they so manage to rise to the occasion.
That's just my understanding of the situation after Piko fleshed it out, however. I could be wrong, but I do believe we are pushing for two similar but markedly different social statuses.
@Geist: Nah, that was no more attitude-driven than "Yeah, no..." or any of your many passive-aggressive remarks. I don't do filters and a small instance of spunk in my junk doesn't warrant all of that pitchforking on your part. I'm bleeding enough as it here! Since we're in the practice of cherry-picking and exaggerating every sliver of spunk in comments, I must inform you: It's a bit too soon to be hawk-eying me like you have. Take me out to a restaurant or something first. I'm not easy. I'm a classy lady. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@Grizzhly: Most of those people have attained significant reach and influence in the high society of the Isles still, wouldn't you say? Their birthing has no bearing on their aristocratic standing.
But people like Jindosh or Sokolov are not on the same level as, let's say the Boyles. They are still below them and are basically working for them. They only have influence because they do/build/paint elaborate things which the aristocracy wants. However, the aristocracy could do perfectly well without Anton Sokolov, although they would be slightly less comfortable, but Sokolov could not do without them. And their influence is mediocre. Sokolov can refuse to paint your picture whereas the Pendletons can destroy your 'House' and can have you slave away in their silver mines.
Why are you so obsessed with them being aristocrats just because they are of high social rank? They can be of high social rank and well-respected without being aristocrats. In a world where Lords and Ladies and Dukes and whatever actually exist along with the common folk, a court member like Sokolov is still a commoner, a respected one, but a commoner.
And that phenomenon you describe as British did exist not only in Britain but in pretty much any country that had a monarchy. The only difference is that many of them are democracies by now, while Britain is still a monarchy.
It's not an obsession. That's simply how aristocracy works by nearly every sourced account that's been mentioned. I simply have yet to see how they aren't, by the definition given on this wiki and by other sources, aristocrats; and unlike with clergy, nothing has been said to sway my stance thus far. Obviously nobility isn't exclusive to Britain. The point I was making was that, from my perspective, it seems like British nobility, specifically, is being confused for general aristocracy.
The obsession seems to be to re-define a long-standing dictionary and wiki definition of a term only as a response to my adding Category:Aristocrats to appropriate articles.
@Grizzhly: They're still blatant members of high society, no matter who's employ they're under. You all don't consider Jindosh – the Grand Inventor of Serkonos – an aristocrat, yet this guy is considered as such? Sorry for picking out cases, but I'm just trying to further elaborate on how odd this reasoning you all have is, in my eyes. Thus far, only subjectivities have been thrown in opposition of official and on-wiki definitions of 'aristocracy'. And Jindosh's standing in high society is highly subjective. He seems to have a tad bit more reach than Lady Boyle, but the point is that both of them are living the high life and in possession of political reach and influence. What makes him different than her? They're both rich, independent, high-standing and primary lieutenants to sovereigns. What gives?
Ultimately, you all are going to do what you want, as you all are more or less in agreement. I've simply been responding accordingly thus far to explain my stance. If you all uniformly believe for whatever reasons that these people aren't aristocrats, then feel free to remove the category from the articles I've added it to.
I really don't know what else to tell you all.
What the aristocracy will pay for a portrait painted by Anton Sokolov! If only they knew how much he detests them!
I know that doesn't explicitly say, "hey I'm Sokolov, I'm not aristocracy," but there's a distinction in there.
I’ve been invited to a soiree at the Boyle Estate. Of course, I won’t attend. The 28th day of the 7th month, the Month of High Cold, is the day I met Anton Sokolov at the Academy. Why would I tarnish the anniversary of the most important day of my life by licking aristocratic boots? I have no time for Fools. I will be solving the riddle of this plague.
Again, not explicit, but something of a distinction nonetheless.
I took a look around the wiki to see what the world of Dishonored thinks. I found this quote from the Heart, on Aramis Stilton: "The aristocrats barely tolerate him[…]"
The lack of "other" in this quote stands out to me. As you're probably aware, Aramis was born poor but has become very rich by the time this quote is spoken. Wouldn't this imply that Aramis, despite his vast wealth, is not considered an aristocrat because of his low birth?
I don't care for how aristocracy is defined on this wiki, but I would like to see this discussion come to an end. We are all part of a community, striving to unknot the mysteries of the Isles. Bickering amongst ourselves about definitions does not aid us in this.
...the higher-ups here tend to frown on that sort of thing. If you wish to discuss something, that's fine. Leave a message, invite me (or whoever) to chat, whatever. Don't keep editing and re-editing what someone else does, especially when the change made was an unnecessary one.
Nowhere, as far as I can tell, does it say in any of of rules that the opening quote has to provide insight into the character's motives or psychology. Therefore, that makes a poor argument for the quote's inclusion at the top.
To me, it worked better at the beginning of Delilah's personality subsection... y'know, the part that is supposed to provide insight into the character's motives or psychology. ;)
To compromise, I re-added the original quote but left your choice as second quote at the top, so that there is one from each game. Hopefully, that will be satisfactory to both parties.
Just wondering why you removed my trivia points about the Outsider having a vested interest in D2 and trying to escape the table? I believe that information belongs on the page, unless it is incorrect.
Thanks for contacting me regarding that, instead of just undoing it. I was going to add an edit summary, but ran out of space and couldn't properly explain myself. I'll address the individual trivia points:
The point on the Outsider's vested interest in the player in DH2 was false. He has a "vested interest" in Corvo, Daud, and Emily, for situational reasons, both in DH1 and DH2. His gifting the player the Timepiece is really no different than him gifting the Mark, the Heart, the clue of "Delilah" in KoD, etc. It's clear he appears to Emily or Corvo again in DH2 for his own reasons, but this isn't "unique among the franchise".
As for his table escape, that's simply not an obscure or unknown point. I could have maybe done better and somehow incorporated your point into the Biography section, but that's not a trivial point. It's blatantly revealed to the player and all who play DH2 will come out knowing that little tidbit. Kinda' like adding as a point his slight design change from DH1 to DH2 or the fact that he's now grounded (i.e. walking and sitting) in DH2 instead of always floating as he does in DH1 – both very obvious.
I do understand what you mean by that first point, thank you.
The second point, I don't quite agree on. The trivia section is not simply for obscure or unknown points, but also for things that don't fit anywhere else on the page but are still related to that character. It does not fit in well the Biography section without a major rewrite of the whole thing, and there is nowhere else on the page for it to go. Lots of information on the page is very obvious, but it all has to go on the wiki. Even some of the remaining trivia points (stopping time, eight in the world, claiming he made the Heart)) classify as such.
I'll incorporate it in the biography, if necessary. Though I think the terse overview of his murder is fine as it is and unique in that it isn't nearly word-for-word DH2 subtitle text.
Information on the general page is obvious, true, but it's obvious (see what I did there?) that most of the trivia points are obscure facts most players don't know about, which seems reasonable to me. Adding obvious points to the Trivia section in particular is just unnecessary.
Trivia points with obvious attention drawn to them in-game should be removed, IMO. Stopping time is obvious I agree. Eight in the world is both obvious and now false I agree. The true origin of the Heart is obscure (the average player heard the Outsider say "molded by my hands" and assumed that he actually created it himself, which is not the case).
It doesn't need to be word for word, but it's about the character, so... Actually, isn't there a personality bit? It might work better there. You know, something like "As a human, he was hopeful and patient, biding his time until the escape he believed he could pull off, despite being confined by rope."
As for stopping time, I think it should still at least be there, but maybe the examples could go. The eight people thing is also on the Mark page, and having it there is a little bit like "Corvo said this about Daud at some point" on Corvo's page, rather than Daud's. Heart, fair point. I much prefer the interpretation that the Outsider viewed Piero as Piero does his drill, as a tool, rather than saying it's insincere.
your idea with the series/franchise page was not bad, and I approve of it, but for the future, before creating pages that also include a major re-categorizing, please discuss things/ask the approval of an admin first.
Also, I saw in one of the edit summaries I saw "bot". If that was you using a bot there, please don't do that again. Although it did no harm in this case, I've seen major harm done through the unauthorized use of bots before.