the initial thread reached beyond the 200 post limit and was locked, but I thought we were still having a lively discussion. Perhaps we would like to continue?

Some points for conversation that came up in the last thread that I think were interesting, and still had room for more commentary:

1) Is Skyrim biased toward the Dark side, favoring evil-leaning players and short-changing good leaning players? this was the gist of the initial topic, looking at the content of quest lines that seemed more abundant for the dark side than the light -- DB, TG both darker, Companions quest having to go werewolf, Daedric quests being harder to avoid and more manipulative and darker, Fewer light-leaning daedric questlines and fewer options for good characters to pursue, fewer and less-developed Divines quests, etc.

2) Are Vampirism and Lycanthropy ineherently evil? This was where the last thread left off, and I for one was finding the conversation here very interesting. Some were arguing that these conditions were inherently evil; others that they were not inherently evil, because only the choice of the character makes it good/evil, not the condition itself. Beyond that is also the question: Should people who want to play good characters, have to be forced to become vampires or werewolfs in order to complete major quest lines?

3) Should the Deadric prince questlines be easily avoidable for player characters who want to play good characters, as they were in prior TES games? Or is Skyrim more true to the nature of the Daedric princes by thrusting us into the questlines whether we like it or not? And even if it is more true to the nature of the Deadric princes, is that good game design for players who really do not want to go evil at all?

-- a side question to this topic is: is it really possible to thwart the manipulations of the Daedric princes anyway?

4) Is full-out Immersion in a real and gritty game what is most important in good game design, even if it means manipulating player characters in ways they might not like? Or is it more important to provide a game design that allows players to choose the courses of action and develop their characters according to their characters alignment and values? Is Darker better to make the game feel more real, or is a Balance of Light /Dark actually better and more real for good game play? Can Bethesda make it so that both Immersion and Choice are built into the games?

Have at it folks! I was very pleasantly surprised by the amount and quality of interest in our last thread. I look forward to more of our views . . .

And Just to get the ball rolling again, in the last post, Kentucky Wildcat said the following:

"

It is true that actions ultimately define someone even if they are a vampire or werewolf, but I don't think the underlying issues with those "gifts" can be overlooked either.

This is especially true with vampirism. It comes from Molag Bal whose sphere is domination, violation, etc. Vampire reflect that in the way they must feed on others just to sustain themselves. The disease also seems to alter the minds of most vampires to the point that they merely see others as completely inferior prey rather than being worth respecting in the least. Sure there's a few outstanding individuals like Verandis Ravenwatch, Janus Hassildor, and Serana (at least if you side with the Dawnguard) who keep the worst of their natures in check, but they're clearly exceptions to the rule. The fact is that almost all vampires are evil, just as their creator no doubt intended.

Werewolves are perhaps a little more nuanced since they fall under Hircine's domain and he seems to simply be amoral for the most part compared to the outright maliciousness of Molag Bal. We're also given a more even ratio of positive to negative examples with the Companions and the hunters of Frostmoon Crag all seemingly using their powers only to hunt animals. Becoming a werewolf still seems to be playing with fire though. There's also negative examples such as the random encounter where a farmer turns then kills his wife in beast form. Even an affirmed werewolf like Aela warns us that some give into the beast to the point that they lose control and become feral.

Bottom line, is that I completely understand why players desiring to be good would want no part of either."

Of the posts on the topic so far, I personally found this to be the best stated.

Quote from Cider! (from previous thread):

1) ...Yes, yes necromancy can be good. Look at how the Dunmer use their dead. First the person agrees, then they become the undead guardians of tombs or will go to their descendants as a spirit to protect them. Necromancy can also be used to expand one's lifespan, could be used to figure out how to better cure diseases, summon the ghost of someone who was murdered to find the murderer. Magic itself isn't evil and saying such is foolish, magic is a tool it's not evil but it's user is the evil one THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS.

2) Imagine if someone killed someone else with a hammer, do you go "Nah, the person isn't the evil one, it was the hammer, the hammer corrupted the person to kill the other person" now apply that to literally ANY school of magic and see how foolish it is. Magic itself has no mind, no soul, no real power to hold control over anyone unless it was used by someone, it is literally pure energy that is incapable of corrupting anyone. It's the USER who is evil, not the style, not the school, but the user who bends the energy to their will. You CAN do good things with necromancy as evidence with Morrowind and the Altmer who expanded their lifespan.

3) We have plenty of vampires and werewolves throughout lore who are good and no, it's not just "special cases" it's them using their powers for good. Yes some devolve into madness and bloodlust but that isn't on what they are that is on the person for letting themselves get that way.

4) We have nothing to suggest that in Tamriel "evil" is written in stone because guess what, IT ISN'T. Just because Tamriel isn't earth literally means nothing at all.

5) In Tamriel ACTIONS DO IN FACT SPEAK LOUDER THEN WHAT YOU ARE and we have nothing to suggest otherwise, I've proven my point already and all you naysayers have done is say "nope, you're wrong" with nothing to support your case.

===================================================================================

(Tried using the "Quote" editing function and it just messed everything up )

1) For every example you give of so called "good", I can give you 3-5 examples of "Evil." How about those Dunmer that do NOT ask permission first? You believe that extending one's life through others' suffering is "good?" I think I see the whole problem, here.

2) No, I do not blame the hammer, nor the manufacturer of the hammer. However, the hammer is NOT a sentient being. The PERSON is. Vampirism and Lycanthropy are sentient beings, not tools that any ole person pick and use. No one is saying "hammers are evil." Is cancer evil? This is a more likely comparison then a hammer, disease and disease.

3) I am no lore hound. Matter of fact I am quite ignorant of Tamriel lore. Could you list, say, 5 examples of Vampires and/or werewolves doing "good" in Tamreilic lore?

4) I do not think anyone is saying "Evil is set in stone." My whole point was all about your idea that anyone who thinks differently from you is "silly." That wrankled me, to be honest. How come *you* are right for everyone else?

5) No, you have not "proven" your belief. "Beliefs" can NEVER be proven. Once they are, they are no longer beliefs (based on faith) and become FACTS. I agree that actions speak louder then words. However, I am not privy to Vampires and Werewolves doing good deeds. Does NOT happen in *my* games. I have not read any books about them, which does not mean they do not exist. If *you* play a goody-two-shoes Vampire or Werewolf, *I* have no idea about them. Why ass-u-me I do and base your whole argument on that angle?

Look, I am not arguing what *you* believe. I am arguing against your "belief" that everyone must agree with you with no exceptions.

[EDIT]

Reading through this, I could see the argument for Serana coming up, so I'll address that here.

When I say "Vampires and Werewolves are Evil." I am NOT saying 100% are this way. Of course there are exceptions. BUT... These exceptions are very few and far between in my own experience. Due to this, I'd rather err on the side of caution and then be proved wrong rather than become a Vampire/Werewolf through my "assumptions." When 99 out of 100 are evil at their core, I feel comfortable and just in saying "Vampires and Lycanthropes are Evil." Do your few examples of "other then Evil" make the whole "good?"