I never implied that they were just evil without motivations(though some probably just like killing for the sheer enjoyment), but to say it's not evil would be off.

Ehh sorry, i try to keep the "allignments" out of this, i mean by those pretty much all factions would be in the evil territory as a lot they do IS murdering who they think is worthy to be murdered with the only real excuse being "those we kill are evil"... and tat just runs into a dead end after a while.

EDIT: A friedn jsut reminded me, why for example would the Blackwood company be considered evil while the Warriors are considered good? Not because of what they do because it's the SAME (the BC was on drugs, that' the only difference) but just ebcuase the game just told you they are.

That alignment axis only causes one to run into a dead end if they just look at the good and evil aspect of it. It's simple yet it's complex at the same time.

Well, when you infiltrate the blackwood company you do wind up massacring an innocent village. They just used the hist sap to prevent their people from realizing what kind of crimes they were committing.

Well but does that make the people in it evil? To them they ARE just a mercenaries organisation just like the warriors guild. And did the leadership really did that deliberately or was it a side effect, i mean how SHUOLD the even exist if all they do is slaughter innocents under drugs? Clearly that wasn't the GOAL of it.

And how is it all solved in the end, SLAUGHTER-THEM-ALL... that wasn't any better in my opinion, it just went the old "killing them is just becuase they kill" route.



Well you still end up in problems, "Are the in that category now, or do they fit here, nooo... maybe there, no not quite, maybe... this, but... no maybe... GAHHH". Just say "no allignment, just social acceptance and operations within or outside the law and opposition by religions".
Allignments always run into problems, in the general suggestions thread i mentioned the canibalism problem, for almost all cultures that would be a horrible thing, clearly evil territory... but not for the Bosmer, for them that's a completely normal thing. Does that make the bosmer evil in ANY way?

Yep, still problematic. The drug aspect really wasn't explored to its fullest potential. Surely, the guys on the drugs are not aware of committing any crimes.

One point about the DnD alignments is who defines what is good or evil? A relative system is ok, with each character or faction judging for himself, but an absolute judgement of good or evil forces someone elses morals on you.

While I don't want every quest to be like a moral crisis situation developed for a psychology-major graduate school paper, I kind of do. I want to have to think about what I want to do with this letter that I've been given to deliver to a noble discussing my future. Do I read it? The noble will surely be upset as well as well as the quest-giver, but for all I know they could be plotting to kill me. If I do read the letter, and it says that I am to be fired/killed/imprisoned, do I still deliver the letter and try to get away before the noble reads it, claiming his reward? Do I not deliver the letter, return to the questgiver and say that I lost it/ was attacked by bandits/accidentally sold it? Or do I simply leave town and not speak to either of the two again and hope we never meet? But if the letter spoke highly of me, what do I do? The noble will surely be displeased with me for snooping through his mail. That's just one small task. There's no clear cut morally correct choice, just action and consequence.

D&D's Book of Exalted Deeds pretty much gives a universal definition of Good. The problem is with shades of grey, or when "Good" is not in your character's best interest.

I didn't read it (any links?), but I think the more "universal" a definition of good is, the bigger the grey areas become.

Thats where the lawful and chatic come in.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.



Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Like I said earlier, its simple yet complex. Though looking at your ideas you've been posting I don't see why you'd prefer Morrowinds like vs dislike system over this. :shrug:


And I think we use the more "universal" definition of good and evil simply because its universal amongst most cultures and easy to implement. Once you start talking about things like vigilantism and other gray areas you're moving into a system thats defined above.

Why of course it does. Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong..Cannibalism clearly falls under the Wrong category. Even if the Bosmer believe it to be Right, it doesn't make it so..
What if the Nords were to say- "There is nothing Wrong with [censored] Children, its perfectly acceptable.." Would it be so?

The Grand'ole tug-o-war between Right&Wrong GoodvsEvil has been around since the dawn of time..and it shall continue until the end of time.
If you can't tell the difference between what is Right and what isn't..well I don't know what to say.

I play a Good Character in every RPG, I don't have the stomache for the Evil side of life..but, I suppose whatever floats your boat.

No offense intended! Mr. DK, just expressing my thoughts.

Back to the topic..I have been working on a story. Though I don't know much of the Lore of the series..so it Will need some ajustment!
I'll post it when I've worked out some more details..

What's right to some people is wrong to others and what's wrong to some is right to others. The fact that they believe it is right does make it so within their own culture, despite what real-world western culture has to say. Morality is not a law of the universe, it is a purely artificial construct. We pick one morality to advocate and say is right simply out of convenience, for morality would be useless as an artificial construct if it could not be imposed on others.

Even when inside a single moral system, right and wrong may change. History has shown us that.

Actually... the hard-coding of morality is part of the universe... And what is universally recognized as right and wrong hasn't changed significantly... Just the amount people will tolerate wrong for their personal goals.

I don't prefer Morrowinds simple like-dislike disposition system, but I prefer that each faction can have their own ideas of what is right or wrong and have an individual moral over an absolute moral system.
What's the alignment of someone who kills to preserve other life, or views only one certain kind of life as worthless, but deeply respects another? Someone hating authority, but being trustworthy?
And about cannibalism, imagine telling some culture, that honors it's dead by consuming their flesh and letting their souls life on within their family members, to bury their beloved ones to let them rot in the dirt.

Points of view, they differ, and they can change.

I think most inhabitants of Tamriel view morality as something that is used to maintain order, not just something to impose on one another.

Getting back to the example, most of the other races would probably view it as being barbaric and wrong even if the bosmer see it as a means of survival and not just something to harm one another.

Each guild might have their own code of conduct, but how they feel about harming or helping an individual isn't going to change if they are like regular humans when it comes to emotions.

Morag Tong Vs. Theives Guild Vs. Dark Brotherhood

someone who wants to kill to preserve other life?probably chaotic neutral
one certain kind of life as worthless?again probably chaotic neutral
someone hating authority, but being trustworthy? on the lawful-chaotic scale, they would be neutral. For good & evil you never specified

and what about cannibalism?you wanted to try and give it an alignment?I would say lawful neutral

motivations vs actions
The system is fairly holistic and flexible and not as black and white as you might believe.

points of views differ, but morality is universal among us and though ours can change,it doesn't happen overnight.

We cannot say there are universal right and wrongs. We can say that humanity generally agrees about certain things. Though the fundamental fact when dealing with this is that the Universe does not make it "right" or "wrong." It is merely the artificial constructs and biological attributes of humanity that make certain acts more desirable or less desirable. Another species could actually benefit from cannibalism, for example, where humans would suffer negative effects from eating their own. In fact, sixual cannibalism can be found in nature.

The difference between humans and other animals in nature is that we rely on our conscious to guide our actions while animals rely on instinct to make their actions for them.



*we should keep this ES related for the topics sake*

Ok, back on topic. The DnD moral system is actually better than most. Especially since it has the qualifiers of neutral, lawful, and chaotic. With work, it could be adapted to fit the grey and grey morality the games have tried to give people. Though as far as morality in the plot-line, I'd hope that beth would try to remember the example they set with Dagoth Ur.

That's a lot of neutrals to work into something usefull. A big grey mass if you ask me.
I don't want to give cannibalism an alignment, I just question if it is universaly wrong.
The alignment system might be flexible, but it still is based on the moral values of someone else, someone we might not all agree with.
And we can argue forever about this, but in my opinion, morality is definietly not universal.

Ok, back on topic. I really just hope the story paths don't try to force morals on the player. Give the mean bastard character the chance to save the world, so he can take it over later.

agreed.

Somethings neutral because it doesn't lean to extreme to either polar end. I dont see how its a grey mass either. Most people are probably neutral.
And it's not just based on the values of someone else its taking into consideration of universal definition that humans give it.

And with that we can get back to the point of the topic.

Yeah save that discussion for another thread please. Dont start a flame war here.

So how long do you think it would take the writers to come up with a good story and quest line. Many of the stories that have allready been posted in this thread have been thought up in 5-30 minutes and I like some of the stores I have read here. Now How long do you think it would take the writers to come up with a good story, that fits into the game, and has a decent mission structure? Again I could write one up in less than an hour if need be, but could you?

Thankfully his role of fairy king was forgotten for OB. Even so, the idea that "he embodies destruction, he must destroy things!" weakens him to the state of a little child who is beaten back every sunday afternoon. It would have been much better if he was like the other daedra who see their "spheres" as hobbies rather than goals. They have their own stuff to do in Oblivion, messing around in Nirn is playtime.