Would you want to adventure with an evil Companion?

Syldras

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

TheMajority wrote: »

I do not understand this fascination with evil or a desire to be around someone who do bad things.
People seem to think it "cool" to be bad, but I don't agree that it's cool.

That's something I also have been wondering about for a while: Where does this "evil = cool" media trope come from and when did it start? Is it from some movie? That's unfortunately something I have never put a big focus on.

Of course, "rebel" and "underdog" characters have been existing in literature for a longer time. And already in the earliest 19th century, the English author Lord Byron established a character type that is flawed, tragic and certainly not "the good hero". But these characters are "dark" because they care little for society's rules and are driven by emotions like bitterness and regret, they're not downright cliché evil, let alone brutal.

What else did I want to write... Ah, yes. The motivation to play an "evil" character: For me it's the same as with all other roleplay characters, it's about seeing a story or the world from a different perspective. And good and evil are both parts of the world, so why should I not try to play both "sides" if I find that interesting? If there are different factions in a game, I usually also play all at least once, just to see them all. What I would think about them in real life doesn't matter to me. I strictly seperate reality and fiction.

chessalavakia_ESO

Other (please describe your thoughts)

Syldras wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

It's easier to accept static or poor behavior from companions when they are helping you it's harder when you are helping them.

They wouldn't have to behave poorly against the player character, of course. If they do towards other people, the player character might not care at all if you're playing an evil character yourself?

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

With Vampires specifically you'd also hit the issue that many of the vampires in ESO are ugly. People are far more willing to accept questionable behavior from pretty people.

I think there are quite a lot of people who like Verandis, Gwendis and Fennorian (and I've never heard an "they're ugly vampires, but..." ), so making a vampire character people like doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

Evil characters frequently do not get along with one another as their objectives do not necessarily align and how far they are willing to go may not necessarily align.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/530590/fennorian-appreciation-thread/p1

Here's an example of Fennorian's mixed popularity.

Personally, most of my characters that have been vampires have looked quite bad so I have tended to helmet them but, you can't do that to a companion so....

Erickson9610

I think Azandar is the closest ZOS wants to get to an "evil" Companion, but even then, he's not actually evil. What I find interesting are these key points about him and his quest line:

• Azandar is indifferent to the player stealing and murdering, and has stolen from the Mages Guild and Psijic Order himself.
• Azandar is arrogant and will resort to force or deception in order to take what he wants. That's a pretty common trope among villains in media.
• We get to see what a "comically evil" version of Azandar would look like through his quest line.

There are many other small details I could point out, but the idea is that Azandar could've been written as a villain. Instead, his storyline focuses around the choices he makes in life and how he's aspiring to not be like that villainous counterpart of his.

And for the record, I want to say that Azandar is a compelling and well-written character. As arguably the most morally grey Companion character, he's still heroic in the sense that he learns some lesson about how his actions affect others around him, and he changes for the better.

Syldras

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Evil characters frequently do not get along with one another as their objectives do not necessarily align and how far they are willing to go may not necessarily align.

Isn't that the case with every character? I wouldn't call Ember evil at all but my character as well as me find her unnerving. Tanlorin also seems to be concepted as a "positive" character, but from what I've read so far I'm not sure whether I should use them at all. There are always likes and dislikes when it comes to characters, and those vary from person to person.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/530590/fennorian-appreciation-thread/p1
Here's an example of Fennorian's mixed popularity.
Personally, most of my characters that have been vampires have looked quite bad so I have tended to helmet them but, you can't do that to a companion so....

Yeah, mixed popularity. Some people like him, some not. Like always. There will never be one character that caters to everyone's likes.

Syldras

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

There are many other small details I could point out, but the idea is that Azandar could've been written as a villain. Instead, his storyline focuses around the choices he makes in life and how he's aspiring to not be like that villainous counterpart of his.
And for the record, I want to say that Azandar is a compelling and well-written character. As arguably the most morally grey Companion character, he's still heroic in the sense that he learns some lesson about how his actions affect others around him, and he changes for the better.

This is exactly what I mean with "redemption arc". There's always some moral story about learning from mistakes and becoming a "better person". For once I'd like to see a companion without that. Someone whose flaws remain flaws.

DreamyLu

Other (please describe your thoughts)

Please enough with companions. Not everybody is interested. Personally, I don't need more and can't avoid the feeling, each time a new companion is provided, that it has taken a budget that could have been put into something interesting me more...

TheMajority

No, I would NOT want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Syldras wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

I do not understand this fascination with evil or a desire to be around someone who do bad things.
People seem to think it "cool" to be bad, but I don't agree that it's cool.

That's something I also have been wondering about for a while: Where does this "evil = cool" media trope come from and when did it start? Is it from some movie? That's unfortunately something I have never put a big focus on.

Of course, "rebel" and "underdog" characters have been existing in literature for a longer time. And already in the earliest 19th century, the English author Lord Byron established a character type that is flawed, tragic and certainly not "the good hero". But these characters are "dark" because they care little for society's rules and are driven by emotions like bitterness and regret, they're not downright cliché evil, let alone brutal.

What else did I want to write... Ah, yes. The motivation to play an "evil" character: For me it's the same as with all other roleplay characters, it's about seeing a story or the world from a different perspective. And good and evil are both parts of the world, so why should I not try to play both "sides" if I find that interesting? If there are different factions in a game, I usually also play all at least once, just to see them all. What I would think about them in real life doesn't matter to me. I strictly seperate reality and fiction.

Yeah I do wonder the same. I do not know if its a place that's specific. But, I see people say many villains are more cool than the hero in a story. Like, with Disney character- Scar is popular even though he did regicide and try to kill Simba too. Or, Ursula has popularity, even in spite of clear manipulative tendency and taking advantage of people in their weakness or desire. People say that they are "cool" or they will say "Ursula is my spirit animal", to say that her actions give them a feel of kinship. I do see people say similar stuff over ESO character, so it is across many fandom. I do not think this behavior is "cool" but also people did once advertise negative behavior such like smoking as cool. So the origin is questionable because of how many fandom it comes to. Well, I think that such a character is possible to be interesting, but not cool.

In my personal perspective, I like a hero character, but that is a point of view I did not give thought to in the past. That people could find an evil character interesting, but not have a secret wish to do evil. Maybe I should think different and separate my idea of a person and values in their life from the fictional role. After all it is fiction.

Erickson9610

Syldras wrote: »

Erickson9610 wrote: »

There are many other small details I could point out, but the idea is that Azandar could've been written as a villain. Instead, his storyline focuses around the choices he makes in life and how he's aspiring to not be like that villainous counterpart of his.
And for the record, I want to say that Azandar is a compelling and well-written character. As arguably the most morally grey Companion character, he's still heroic in the sense that he learns some lesson about how his actions affect others around him, and he changes for the better.

This is exactly what I mean with "redemption arc". There's always some moral story about learning from mistakes and becoming a "better person". For once I'd like to see a companion without that. Someone whose flaws remain flaws.

I agree. I think the only reason Azandar doesn't gain rapport with the player when they murder is because it would no longer make sense after the player has finished the questline and Azandar has had that redemption arc.

Companions don't change their rapport sources. So, if a Companion is to gain rapport for the player murdering a civilian, then that Companion must never have a redemption arc that focuses on how murdering people is wrong — because continuing to gain rapport for the player murdering innocents after the Companion realizes that it's wrong just wouldn't make any sense.

There are many reasons to justify why a Companion would approve of murder. There could be a Dark Brotherhood member who enjoys sending souls to Sithis, or a Werewolf who approves of hunting in worship of Hircine. Maybe a Daedra Companion who doesn't care either way if mortals live or die, or a Vampire who recognizes that they have to feed on mortals by necessity.


What players don't want is a Companion who they'd assume would support their criminal playstyle who instead ends up scolding them for it. We weren't expecting Mirri with her assassin abilities to abhor the assassin organization, or Zerith with his Necromancer abilities to scold the player for not using their Necromancer abilities the correct way.

We may just end up getting a Vampire who's just like anyone from House Ravenwatch or a Werewolf who despises their lycanthropy — why bother with a "dark" character archetype if they're always going to have a "morally good" spin on their archetype?

Alaztor91

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

We are going to have 8 Companions after U44 so a little variety would be nice, and my character wouldn't really mind since he basically traded Valaste's sanity for 2 skill points.

BretonMage

No, I would NOT want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

I agree. I think the only reason Azandar doesn't gain rapport with the player when they murder is because it would no longer make sense after the player has finished the questline and Azandar has had that redemption arc.

Companions don't change their rapport sources. So, if a Companion is to gain rapport for the player murdering a civilian, then that Companion must never have a redemption arc that focuses on how murdering people is wrong — because continuing to gain rapport for the player murdering innocents after the Companion realizes that it's wrong just wouldn't make any sense.

There are many reasons to justify why a Companion would approve of murder. There could be a Dark Brotherhood member who enjoys sending souls to Sithis, or a Werewolf who approves of hunting in worship of Hircine. Maybe a Daedra Companion who doesn't care either way if mortals live or die, or a Vampire who recognizes that they have to feed on mortals by necessity.

I'd say that approving of murder across the board puts you squarely in the "evil" category. As Azandar is morally grey, it makes sense that he would be more or less neutral about murder even before the redemption arc; unconcerned in general, perhaps, disapproving of some unnecessary ones, and approving of others that might further his/the player's cause. And of course, it would be impossible to be able to distinguish between such circumstances with the rapport mechanics we have.

AnduinTryggva

Other (please describe your thoughts)

I voted other because it is difficult and would strongly depend in what way my own character would be evil.

If my character is of the good-hearted sort despising evil he surely would not travel with such a bloke.

If my character is a real evil character he might not travel with him either as he would strongly assume that the other is as evil as him and at one point might try to assassinate my character. So he probably would try to kill him first. You see how this could end.

Another thing would be if they both are of the mindset that the objective justifies the means and are not specifically prone to do evil but would not hesitate to do it if it serves the goal (saving the world).

And then it depends to which extent that companion is evil. Is he just a thief? Or is he an outright murderer in order to enrich himself?

Ishtarknows

Other (please describe your thoughts)

I want to adventure with an evil companion as much as I want to with a good one - that is, not at all.
That said, an evil companion might have better chat than the goody goody ones so there's that

JemadarofCaerSalis

No, I would NOT want to adventure with an evil Companion.

TheMajority wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

I do not understand this fascination with evil or a desire to be around someone who do bad things.
People seem to think it "cool" to be bad, but I don't agree that it's cool.

That's something I also have been wondering about for a while: Where does this "evil = cool" media trope come from and when did it start? Is it from some movie? That's unfortunately something I have never put a big focus on.

Of course, "rebel" and "underdog" characters have been existing in literature for a longer time. And already in the earliest 19th century, the English author Lord Byron established a character type that is flawed, tragic and certainly not "the good hero". But these characters are "dark" because they care little for society's rules and are driven by emotions like bitterness and regret, they're not downright cliché evil, let alone brutal.

What else did I want to write... Ah, yes. The motivation to play an "evil" character: For me it's the same as with all other roleplay characters, it's about seeing a story or the world from a different perspective. And good and evil are both parts of the world, so why should I not try to play both "sides" if I find that interesting? If there are different factions in a game, I usually also play all at least once, just to see them all. What I would think about them in real life doesn't matter to me. I strictly seperate reality and fiction.

Yeah I do wonder the same. I do not know if its a place that's specific. But, I see people say many villains are more cool than the hero in a story. Like, with Disney character- Scar is popular even though he did regicide and try to kill Simba too. Or, Ursula has popularity, even in spite of clear manipulative tendency and taking advantage of people in their weakness or desire. People say that they are "cool" or they will say "Ursula is my spirit animal", to say that her actions give them a feel of kinship. I do see people say similar stuff over ESO character, so it is across many fandom. I do not think this behavior is "cool" but also people did once advertise negative behavior such like smoking as cool. So the origin is questionable because of how many fandom it comes to. Well, I think that such a character is possible to be interesting, but not cool.

In my personal perspective, I like a hero character, but that is a point of view I did not give thought to in the past. That people could find an evil character interesting, but not have a secret wish to do evil. Maybe I should think different and separate my idea of a person and values in their life from the fictional role. After all it is fiction.

From my experiences and what I have seen/heard, a lot of it comes down to the heroes being cookie cutter typical 'good guy' archetypes, while the villains sometimes got better characters. Or the heroes having no flaws at all.

Then there are some people who just want to explore things they would normally never do in real life, and they can't do it with a 'goody two shoes hero' as their player character.

I also think there is an aspect that sometimes you DO relate to some part of the villain, such as maybe being resentful over being passed over for an inheritance/promotion, or you just want to be left alone and everyone keeps bothering you.

Then, like most things that happen online, (probably happens in real life as well, just harder to see), people took that concept and ran with it. It became 'cool' to dislike 'heroes' and like 'villains' and younger people wanted to be cool, so they started liking villains and more 'evil' characters.

I will say that I personally got tired of it years ago, where every 'OC' I saw was basically a mass murdering demon, or an anti-social villain who hated everyone and everything.

I feel the same way about villains in media. A well written villain with a reason for doing what they are doing is great, but sometimes I want the villains to just be evil. No reason why, they just *are*. Same thing about redemption arcs. Sometimes they are nice, because the villains do have good characteristics, but sometimes I just want them to remain villains and get justice.

I also do think that there is a core of 'the underdog' and a 'rejection of authority' involved, as many heroes often are aligned with law enforcement of some sort or involved someway with enforcing laws (such as preventing the villain from mass murdering everyone), and so the hero gets rejected because they represent something, at least in the minds of these people, that they dislike.

(not to mention how long 'goody two shoes' and people like that have been portrayed in media.)

flizomica

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Morally grey/chaotic neutral flavor of "evil", certainly. Ember is probably the closest to this, but I find her to be childish and therefore not super appealing.

What annoys me more about many of the companions is less that they're strictly good-aligned and more that they're a goody-two-shoes and have a giant stick up their butt about "bad" things (looking at you, Bastian and Isobel).

spartaxoxo

Other (please describe your thoughts)

One thing about this question too is we all draw the line differently. Like I think Ember is a pretty dark gray. She takes a lot of pleasure in stealing. And she's purposely gotten people hurt to steal from them. She also seems to quite enjoy violence. She's not murderous or as evil as the folks in the Dark Brotherhood (which is easily the most evil faction the player character can align themselves with imo). But, I wouldn't consider her a good aligned character at all. Her youth, tragic backstory, etc all soften that. But she is not a good aligned character imo. She's a little bit evil.

Also, the only character I would classify as a goody two shoe is Isobel.

ellmarie

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It depends on how evil? I wouldn't want a companion that's miserable to be around. But someone like Elam from the Dark Brotherhood could be okay. But I wouldn't want a character like Sondivel to be a companion.

Yes! I could listen to Elam all day.

Blood_again

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

TheMajority wrote: »

I do not understand this fascination with evil or a desire to be around someone who do bad things.

People seem to think it "cool" to be bad, but I don't agree that it's cool.

I think it is not to be "cool". It is rather to take different points of view.
If you enter the hotel first as a customer, then as a janitor, then as its manager, you will know about this hotel way more than just by booking the room.
To have this experience in game, I mean without real harm to anybody... I would call it a lucrative deal.

Syldras

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Blood_again wrote: »

I think it is not to be "cool". It is rather to take different points of view.

Depends on the person, really. I think it is, by some, somehow seen as cool. The difference is whether the perspective of the evil character seems to be explored or celebrated. Think of edgelords, or the more recent phenomenon of movies with a serial killer or psychopath as the main protagonist depicted in a mostly positive way. Not sure if that's a more extreme variant of the usual "rebel, anti-establishment, defying rules = cool" that somehow ignores that categorizing "slaughtering people for fun" as just being an individualistic freethinker might be a bit extreme?

And then of course factors like that some people are especially drawn to things that are forbidden or taboo. There also seems to be a fascination for the scary and morbid in many people. But I'm no anthropologist, so I have no clue what use that might have (seems to be inborn, so it must have an evolutionary reason).

ArchMikem

No, I would NOT want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Chaotic Evil? Lawful Evil? Neutral Evil?

It really depends, especially since a Chaotic Evil personality most likely would never agree to a partnership and instead would just stab the player in the neck.

A Lawful Evil might be more suitable. Someone that has no regard for the gray area of life and doesn't care about anyone's life or feelings so long as the order of the land remains resolute.

But I'm general no, I don't like malevolent types.

TX12001rwb17_ESO

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Not entirely evil but I want a vampire companion who is not brooding or regretful, I want a vampire who knows they are on top of the food chain and embraces it.

Syldras

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

I find it interesting that many replies, no matter whether for or against an "evil" companion, seem to have a very trope-y character in mind (basically evil for the sake of evil, no other character traits). Makes me wonder whether that comes from, but that's a different topic.

From my point of view, an evil character would still be a person and as such capable of different emotions, of being irrational, of having doubts at times. And without delving too much into real world history: Even the most horrid despots and criminals often had family members or pets they truly loved and treated well, even if they were extremely horrid to other people (main factor seems to be dehumanization or only caring for their own group while completely disrespecting everyone outside that group); so no, not even being the most horrid person on Nirn would mean that that companion would be completely unable to socialize or even genuinely like the player character.

What does "evil" mean, in the end, if we look beyond the trope? Someone who is uninterested in law or social rules, behaves immorally, is unempathetic or just doesn't care about the consequences their actions have on others. Someone selfish and ruthless. Maybe powerhungry, but not in every case. Maybe there's a certain philosophy or world view in play. Maybe in some cases a certain bitterness and disillusion. With that background, all kinds of characters would be possible.

Erickson9610

I think the question of whether players want to adventure with evil Companions should've been split into two questions:

• Would you adventure with a character of morally evil characterization?
• Would you adventure with a Companion who gains rapport from morally evil things?

The first question encompasses whether players care about the personality of the Companion being evil, whereas the second question encompasses whether players care about the Companion giving them rapport for the player doing evil things.

I think some players care more about the Companion allowing the player to be evil, rather than the Companion themselves being evil. The two often go hand-in-hand, but we've seen some examples (like Azandar) where the Companion allows the player to be evil but is not evil themselves.

Syldras

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

I think the question of whether players want to adventure with evil Companions should've been split into two questions:

• Would you adventure with a character of morally evil characterization?
• Would you adventure with a Companion who gains rapport from morally evil things?

My focus would be on the first, as I see companions mainly as a narration tool, a roleplay device and some extra quests.

And it's not hard to gain rapport anyway. With the last 2 companions, I just did one of their +125 daily quests for a few days in a row, that was enough to max them in no time.

Ugrak

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Erickson9610 wrote: »

There are many reasons to justify why a Companion would approve of murder. There could be a Dark Brotherhood member who enjoys sending souls to Sithis, or a Werewolf who approves of hunting in worship of Hircine. Maybe a Daedra Companion who doesn't care either way if mortals live or die, or a Vampire who recognizes that they have to feed on mortals by necessity.


What players don't want is a Companion who they'd assume would support their criminal playstyle who instead ends up scolding them for it. We weren't expecting Mirri with her assassin abilities to abhor the assassin organization, or Zerith with his Necromancer abilities to scold the player for not using their Necromancer abilities the correct way.

We may just end up getting a Vampire who's just like anyone from House Ravenwatch or a Werewolf who despises their lycanthropy — why bother with a "dark" character archetype if they're always going to have a "morally good" spin on their archetype?

The necromancer class plus vampire and werewolf abilities already have a justice system mechanic. It would fit the theme to have companions of that kind be fugitives of the law. And as a side note, I've always found the thieves refuge NPCs to have some of the most interesting personalities.

They could even be in their ultimate forms permanently if that was the case, as you'd quickly learn to keep them away from civilization.

Kisakee

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Syldras wrote: »

I find it interesting that many replies, no matter whether for or against an "evil" companion, seem to have a very trope-y character in mind (basically evil for the sake of evil, no other character traits). Makes me wonder whether that comes from, but that's a different topic.

From my point of view, an evil character would still be a person and as such capable of different emotions, of being irrational, of having doubts at times. And without delving too much into real world history: Even the most horrid despots and criminals often had family members or pets they truly loved and treated well, even if they were extremely horrid to other people (main factor seems to be dehumanization or only caring for their own group while completely disrespecting everyone outside that group); so no, not even being the most horrid person on Nirn would mean that that companion would be completely unable to socialize or even genuinely like the player character.

What does "evil" mean, in the end, if we look beyond the trope? Someone who is uninterested in law or social rules, behaves immorally, is unempathetic or just doesn't care about the consequences their actions have on others. Someone selfish and ruthless. Maybe powerhungry, but not in every case. Maybe there's a certain philosophy or world view in play. Maybe in some cases a certain bitterness and disillusion. With that background, all kinds of characters would be possible.

I do whatever i want whenever i want and i only value the things i want when i feel like it so that's probably defining me as "chaotic" as no one knows what i'm going to do in a certain situation.
I can be the guy helping you out with your quest or the one cutting your throat to get your gold so whether i'm good or evil is a view of perspective.

There's probably no way to mark things down to a single name of it, just opinions at what point someone defines your alignment in specific situations. To make it easy we call people "evil" if they do something that isn't in unison with societies standards, to me it's just doing things like Sinatra: My way.

Syldras

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Kisakee wrote: »

I do whatever i want whenever i want and i only value the things i want when i feel like it so that's probably defining me as "chaotic" as no one knows what i'm going to do in a certain situation.
I can be the guy helping you out with your quest or the one cutting your throat to get your gold so whether i'm good or evil is a view of perspective.

Yeah, but I was talking about how to create a "convincing" character for a narration for a bigger public. Even if a concept or way of thinking is alien to people, they will try to find some "logic" or system behind it at least. So a character acting completely randomly won't "work", because people can't "relate" in any way. To get it work, there must be some motivation to explain the behaviour, a world view, a belief, some character traits, whatever.

LalMirchi

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

As the game itself is only playfully evil, I would even call it evil-lite, perhaps this will never change. There's some thievery, assassination with optional overdone animations and that's it. None of the existing "naughty" companions ever do approach evilness and all of them have redeeming qualities.

AzuraFan

No, I would NOT want to adventure with an evil Companion.

I have zero interest in an evil companion, if it means a companion who twirls his moustache as he's whispering in my ear that I should do eeeevil things.

The concept of evil is pretty weird in the TES world. Killing people and animals is par for the course in ESO. We all do it, and whether we're the good guys is sometimes questionable. Encourage me to murder? I've done the dark brotherhood quest line. I've killed hundreds of people, maybe thousands. I don't need any encouragement. I kill cute little bunnies going about their business for the "wild animals" endeavor.

I suspect most of our characters, except those of RP-ers who stay true to whatever personalities they've created, are already evil in any way that a companion could be considered evil.

If by evil companion you just mean people get rapport for doing things like using the blade of woe or stealing, then no problem, but I don't see that as an evil companion. That's just a normal adventurer in the TES world.

FelisCatus

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

I would yes. Would it make sense? Not really when we're always forced to be the hero in this game even when we don't want to.

Vaqual

Yes, I would want to adventure with an evil Companion.

Without dancing around the definition of evil, there are some types of companions with bad character traits that I could imagine. There are probably no big revelations in this post, everything has been done somewhere in some fashion. Here are some example ideas for anti-heroes that could still fit for a wide range of player hero chacters:

> A seasoned, stoic and ruthless adjutant who has found his place in the world to be at the players side. Results matter and that is why he won't be fazed by any player action. If he is left to his own devices he will pick the straightest path towards his goal. He loves being put to the test and to surprise with his aptitude. Failure disappoints him severley. (player death is the only rapport loss source, but it has hefty penalties) - balanced kit

> A groveling bootlicker. He serves his master without missing a beat, but his motifs are not always evident. He thrives at every opportunity that he gets to exert power over others by himself. He hates to be sidelined. But there is nothing brightens his day more than his masters recognition. (gains rapport for executing enemies under 5 % max HP by himself, loses rapport for every time you summon another companion, rapport can be bought through gold donations or donations of powerful items, especially charged soul gems) - support kit

> A power hungry, vain and charming seductress. She knows every trick in the book and she always gets what she wants. The player is her tool. She has been consumed by her thirst for absolute control to the point where she sometimes forgets what she actually wants. She has open tabs everywhere in Tamriel and always appreciates it when there is one less soul hounding her. She hates wasting her time for tasks that do not serve her goals, or at least what she perceives to be her goals at the moment. (semi-randomized rapport sources, mood indicates current set) - balanced kit

> A dark zealot. Higher powers guide his steps. Your goals align with his. Who sent him? Where does his loyalty truly lie? He celebrates bloodshed as much as he celebrates life. Anything that confronts him with his past will spark his ire. (gains rapport for every 1000 slain enemies or resurrected allies; history books and time magic incur a rapport loss) - physical fighter kit