I was taught in my US history class (yes in the US) that the USA was quite evil to the Native Americans. It's widely accepted, at least where I'm from (in Wisconsin). The key to being good is to recognize the past mistakes of others too (in that case earlier in the country's history), to try and avoid repeating history. Even Vietnam was portrayed in a way in the textbook that presented the side of those who opposed the war as well. I know in some parts of the country they want to re-write history books to eliminate or downplay the bad things that our country did, but not where I'm from.

For me good and evil aren't always clear cut, but I think taking pleasure in the harm or suffering of another is always evil. That's not saying that fighting for a good cause is wrong, but taking outright pleasure in the suffering of another, no matter how wicked they are, is a pretty obvious facet of evil in my opinion. It's a bit harder when it's more grey.

I don't buy the whole "it's cultural" baloney though. I don't care what culture it is, a wicked act like genocide is pretty darn evil no matter what. Torture is an evil no matter what.

Considering FO3 had a lot of good ways to end quests, neutral ways, and evil ways to end just one quest, I've already figured they would do the same for skyrim. Good and evil is all perspective anyways. Good people do bad things for good reasons all the time, should be the same in skyrim.

Dragon Age is one of the first games to actually almost fix the morality problem in fantasy games. Most games have been suffering from the 2 dimensional, black and white systems that were passed down from games like D&D. While that game was absolutely wonderful, I completely hate the morality/alignment system. It was totally unrealistic.

While Dragon Age was not a perfect game, I enjoyed the fact that your choices never determined whether you were a good or evil person, they simply were your decisions. But your choices affected the world and the way it perceived and responded to you. That is the most important and realistic way to handle morality. Give me the choice to do what I want to do, but give me the appropriate consequences so that there is actual meaning to my actions. Only thing that Dragon Age screwed up on was that you weren't always rewarded equally for your choices, so you sometimes felt compelled to do the "good" thing, instead of what you really wanted to do.

This is my hope as well... although even with Fallout 3's options... most of them simply felt like they were labeled "Good", "Evil", and "Neutral". I would hope that most of Skyrim's quests feel more -organic- than that. One's actions ought to affect what course they take, as opposed to simply what dialogue they pursue or who they shoot in the face.

Having just this one pivotal moment define whether your action is good, bad, or "Meh..." just doesn't cut it for me. Or for most people I've talked to about it...

I agree wholeheartedly with your first statement. Except most our history books (in Alabama at least) are indeed plauged with lies and one-sided views of our people and government to make future generations grow up and think, "Wow, I'm proud that I was born in such a good and perfect country/society!". I hear it at my highschool all the time. However, most people see my views on what's "good" and "evil" backwards. Not that I agree with murder though. I agree taking too much pleasure in murder is "evil". I also judge based on how that said someone commits murder. A clean quick kill is as nice as it gets. Taking it slower than necessary or "torturing" to me is beyond evil.

I normally hide my views mainly because I know it conflicts with everyone's (if not most people's) views in this society. If more people could see in my head I'd be labeled as "evil". For example I sometimes take joy in other's misfortunes, like when they fail a test or lose something. I believe alot of people "think" like me, but don't want to admit it. I just choose to not get in serious trouble by speaking.

As for culture. Some cultures believe genocide is the right thing, so in their perspective they are right. It's a very touchy subject; I've just come to learn that unless God(s) or some divine creator comes down and explains thoroughly what's good and evil, no one is ever going to be truely right.

Yeah, because I totally said that all charities were perfect :rolleyes:

I both agree and disagree.
I agree they should be grey.
As far as your suggestions of how that's implemented, well let's just say I'm glad you're not making the game.

Variety is good, I agree, and the "Robin Hood" thieves guild kinda bugged me.

I mean, i'm a good guy in all the games i play, but in a world where there is no Evil to battle except in a foolish
Fairy Tale way, kinda bugs me.

I want to be a Decent Fellow who tries to maintain some morality, but runs into @#$^holes he has to deal with.

Thats how it works. It's only realistic.



No matter WHAT guild your in, if it's known for good or evil, your always gonna run into the annoying goody two shoes or sickening Jerk.

Briefly, on the background bits of philosophy being thrown about here - I remember when I thought nihilism was pretty cool too. Then I figured out that nihilism as a position is a failure. Sure - we can't state with objective certainty that this or that is "good" or "evil" or "black" or "white," but when it gets right down to it, we can't even state with objective certainty that the universe exists. So at some point we just have to svck it up and start presuming, because otherwise we can't function at all.

EVERYTHING is ultimately subjective, so there's nothing at all special about it. It's just part of the landscape.

That out of the way - I want to see as many quirks and foibles as make sense in any group of humans in the factions in Skyrim, and I want to see as many choices for things to do and ways to do them as any potential dynamic within the organization might allow. I want to see good paths and evil paths and any number of ones in between. I'm no more interested in being forced into a gray path than I am a white or black one. I want the opportunity to choose, depending on what a given character would choose, no matter who or what that character might be.

You could have written a book by now, rather than spend that energy writing large articles on Forum Threads. :whistling:

it would not make sense for guilds like the fighters guild to bunjie back and forth between good and bad. you can't have one quest have you save a princess from a dragon and then the next have you randomly kill people all in the same guild.

the reason why there was not many organized "evil" groups is because evil people tend to remain isolated because they don't want to be identified as an evil person lest a guard stop them. thats the rational any ways.

Oblivion left it up to you to do the evil deeds as they was many oportunies. However, it would only be an improvement if they added more variety of stuff for evil characters to do.

I absolutely agree. A mix of classic good vs evil as well as grey morality would be perfect. And the whole "there is no evil" thing is completely incorrect, it's straight moral relativism which most every ethicist rejects because it allows atrocities to be justified as cultural differences.

Well, I think what people really want is a variety of choices WITHIN each guild. Like, not ALL of the fighter's guild has to be corrupt, just a few of the bigwigs. It would work much better if there were not a linear progression of quests, because it forces you to follow one particular quest after another, meaning you'll end up having to do a quest which contradicts the nature of your character. If there were options to turn down one quest while choosing another, more preferred quest, then I think most people would be satisfied. It allows you to choose a goodie-two-shoes quest, or choose a more shady one, depending on the personality and goals of your particular character.

I don't really see the Dark Brotherhood as Stupid Evil. They weren't usually killing just to kill, they doing contracts.
Thieves Guild wasn't really good, nor evil. I don't consider the guards evil, after all, you are the criminal scum, not them. Their stealing only really helped themselves. As long as they don't go even more Robin-Hood style though.
Mages Guild I considered Corrupt. They were killing many people because of the views of their archmage, Traven. Remember, Necromancy isn't Illegal in Cyrodiil, while murdering citizens who have not commited crimes is.
Fighters Guild, they were basically going against and fighting a new guild like them. I don't really find BlackWood company evil, despite how the quest was prepared, but also, you only got the point of view from the fighters guild.
Though yeah, even more Grey Choices would be good.

Just FYI, just because someone supports moral relativism doesn't mean that they have to "justify atrocities as cultural differences". Its much more complex than that. Either way, I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just leave it at that.

To add to this:

The problem so many games have is that they try to aim for specific moral solutions instead of just solutions. The latter is the important part of design. I shouldn't be limited to certain choices only because I need to fill up my Good Guy/Bad Guy/Whatever Guy bar, I should be limited because there are only certain options actually available. Is a course of action a reasonable response to the quest? Then add it, regardless of any moral conundrum it may or may not address. Any sense of morality will be decided by me, the player. It is Beth's job simply to provide me a system that allows for player agency.

Really, this comes back to realism. A quest should be exactly as deep as I decide it is. I can follow something to the letter and be done with it in half an hour. I can dig deeper, find out new information. I can change my allegiances, backstab my former employer. I can work as a double agent, pretending to backstab my former employer. I can backstab [censored] everyone. I can kill that guy or not kill him or tell him I won't kill him and then kill him anyways. These options aren't there to provide me with moral perspectives. They are there because it makes sense for them to be there. Anything else is simply a byproduct of that.

i would love a game that is similar to life when it comes to evil/good/neutral b/c depending on your point of view xyz is good while abc is bad the reverse may be true for some other guy.

Hence why i get sick of most games because the story telling is so [censored] cliche and herp durp POTATO.

Which reminds me; the witcher 2=refreshing.

I think we're forgetting about some of the gray in oblivion. In the fighters guild for example, remember maglir? We killed him, because we ruined his life, he could finally have a home and take care of his wife and kids by working for blackwood. Or the dark brotherhood, where we saved the man who was going to be killed by a loansharks collector (granted he used his mom as the brotherhoods offering but yea XD)

I actually adored the Brotherhood in Elder Scrolls.. I always end up playing "good" characters, but even I was put off by the "Disneyworld" feel to all of the quests. When I got into the DB, the first quest was kind of like, "Awesome. I can a suave knife in the dark, stealing the life of a sleeping man who most certainly did nasty things!" And the first few quests were kind of ambiguous, but still acceptable on the moral scale. And then you got into killing some innocent old lady in the hills, and you began to see the true nature of this cult. The thing about the DB is that I wouldn't necessarily call them evil, but they did worship Death -- they didn't pick and choose targets based on furthering some agenda, they answered the "prayers" of those who would be skulky enough to offer payment. In their eyes, they are not evil at all.

If there was a truly "evil" guild (i.e, necromancers going, "HAHA! I AM EBIL! FEAR MEEE!"), I'd be very disheartened to see it. Even the most evil people in our world justify their actions by thinking they are doing something good or in service to a cause. One could say even the nastier daedra are just self-serving twits, not evil overlords. In Oblivion, the few necromancers that you got to talk to gave the impression that most of them practiced necromancy out of academic curiosity, or, as an earlier poster suggested, because they saw some non-evil-inspired utility for it (servants, guards, etc).

I find it odd that mages in the Elder Scrolls series are totally put off with necromancy, which is the reanimation of bodies, but completely okay with the use of soul gems -- which are powered by the souls / life essenses of dying people and creatures. HMMMMM.

I think I get what OP is trying to say, but I would like to say Oblivion did it OK.
I wanted to have the option of joining either Blackwood company or Fighter's guild, but that would have doubled the workload on Dev's side.
Sure, they got some silly parts here and there with all over the game, but I think that's part of charm that makes TES what it is.

Not death, change/chaos.

This... I completely agree. I was very annoyed by that. The Necromancers is a guild that I wanted to join... Like the Enclave in Fallout 3... I got the feeling right off the bat the Mages Guild was corrupted. I will feel really cheated if there is no Necromancer Guild this time around...

It's a fantasy game, nothing wrong with some Paladins and ruthless killers. And remember, black and white can be politicised to appear grey. Morag Tong, oh yeah, they were sanctioned, that makes them more interesting. Doesn't change the fact that murder for hire is pretty much black and white evil, legal or not. Or were Morag Tong operatives allowed to refuse certain jobs if they felt the victim didn't deserve it?

agree with everything, although I did like the cultlike aspect of the Darkbrotherhood, but ultimately, it would be more appropriate to be attached to the necromancers.

I'd say that orc guy who killed a 6-year-old at a her birthday party is pretty evilish.