I want to play as "evil" in more quests

marshill88

I love the veiled heritance, I want to join them. I've had it with all these emperors, monarchs and ruling deities, and constantly doing quests that support their dictatorships. It seems most zones (all perhaps?) in ESO have governments run by upper class elitists giving zero democracy to the people always deciding what is best for everyone else and I'm constantly saving their behinds while silencing rebel groups who (as far as I know) only want the right to protest and dissent from the elite class. I'm fatigued with goody-tushu elves and their pompous superiority and I'd be delighted to lead a boat load army of veiled heritance to smash their elite palaces and bring democratic rule to the people

Of course this means I would play as an evil character, but I'm not convinced it would be evil at all. I would see it as delightfully good.

Sarcasm aside, my point is, I'd just love to see more quest lines in this game that allow me to choose the other side (would super enjoy joining the veiled heritance), and not be forced to fight for the ruling class.

bmnoble

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

marshill88

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

yea you are right, i didn't like them at first, for me the more i had to serve the elves the more i liked the veiled heritance. I hope they add some "evil" options in quests line...especially major quest lines...in future updates.

starkerealm

marshill88 wrote: »

...while silencing rebel groups who (as far as I know) only want the right to protest and dissent from the elite class.

The Veiled Heritance wants to install their own leader onto the throne, and maintain the existing monarchical structure. It's about replacing Ayrenn with Estre, with the only major social change beyond that being the high elves becoming even more xenophobic. Not a cry for freedom from the oppressed masses.

In fact, Estre's rise to power would actually be worse for the majority of The Dominion, as she views the Bosmer and Khajiit as a lower class of "her" empire.

Supreme_Atromancer

marshill88 wrote: »

I love the veiled heritance, I want to join them. I've had it with all these emperors, monarchs and ruling deities, and constantly doing quests that support their dictatorships. It seems most zones (all perhaps?) in ESO have governments run by upper class elitists giving zero democracy to the people always deciding what is best for everyone else and I'm constantly saving their behinds while silencing rebel groups who (as far as I know) only want the right to protest and dissent from the elite class. I'm fatigued with goody-tushu elves and their pompous superiority and I'd be delighted to lead a boat load army of veiled heritance to smash their elite palaces and bring democratic rule to the people

Of course this means I would play as an evil character, but I'm not convinced it would be evil at all. I would see it as delightfully good.

Sarcasm aside, my point is, I'd just love to see more quest lines in this game that allow me to choose the other side (would super enjoy joining the veiled heritance), and not be forced to fight for the ruling class.

Yeah man, strongly agree: One of the most enduring appeals of Elder Scrolls story writing is perspective and the unreliable narrator, which, when taken to its extreme (as it is in Skyrim), allows the player to explore the world through the views of the people actually in it. You can enter Skyrim with your own prejudices and make a choice about the Stormcloaks or Imperials, but both factions, when viewed through the eyes of their supporters, had very compelling, relatable perspectives if you took the time to explore. In doing so, you not only learn about the conflict at hand, but about the factors preceding the conflict, a history of the world. We didn't have to stand in Bleakfalls Barrow reading a book about how the Nords were a grim, hot-blooded people quick to aggression and slow to forget - we got to live it by talking to people and immersing ourselves in the story by exploring two very different perspectives of the same problem (and as an aside, this is one of the most immersive stories in the franchise, for all people complain about Skyrim's relative shallowness, and while Emil has copped a lot of crap, he's one of the greatest contributors to Elder Scrolls writing in my eyes).

Now consider Orsinium: unfortunately, the writers decided it was "about orcs", and that meant there was to be little room for any dimension, because it might take from "about ORCS!!. The Winterborn offer a really compelling faction. Regarding the roots of the conflict, there's only Forge-Mother Alga, who offers no justification or fundamental right of the orcs to the territory: the Winterborn used to control this territory, but now it belongs to orcs: its purely territoriality, with no inherent righteousness for either faction beyond "about orcs".

I think Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild offer examples that touch even more on what you're saying @marshill88 , albeit from the opposite stance: there's no opportunity to engage in either content if you play a good character: you either give up any pretense of playing the character you want and just grind through, slaying innocent folk for the skill points and new abilities or accept that the unnecessarily limited perspective the design adopted means that content and story is only for people who want to play assassins or don't care about story anyway. Otherwise, they're making content that "is not for you".

In Orsinium, those of us thirsty enough for any sense of nuance beyond Disney dimensions can catch snippets of an invitation for sympathy if you pay very close attention: there's a dairy you can read regarding the Eye of Malacath that might highlight the futility of conflict between the two people, and Iceheart's pre-fight "taunts" actually offer insight into the orcish condition and are taunting because they hit close to home. The Iron Wheel from Thieves Guild DLC lacks even that, but at the risk of losing the shallow dimension of story exploration, they could easily have offered another lens through which we might have explored the story or indulged the agency ZOS is not capitalising on. Even Dark Brotherhood DLC could have offered similar compelling factions.

The vast majority of the writing is through only one perspective. We go along with wiping out the Winterborn or taking up the Blade of Woe because that's our one single ticket to the plot - its a railroad on which we have limited opportunity to explore the world and the people, and zero agency.

The writing in all three of these examples was great - I believe Orsinium was probably one of the community's favourites, and for very good reason: the villain was compelling and the story relatable. Whoever wrote it did a fantastic job. But a roleplaying demands agency, and fails realisation on a railroad; and meaningful exploration of competing perspectives is one of the core elements of Elder Scrolls story telling.

Supreme_Atromancer

starkerealm wrote: »

marshill88 wrote: »

...while silencing rebel groups who (as far as I know) only want the right to protest and dissent from the elite class.

The Veiled Heritance wants to install their own leader onto the throne, and maintain the existing monarchical structure. It's about replacing Ayrenn with Estre, with the only major social change beyond that being the high elves becoming even more xenophobic. Not a cry for freedom from the oppressed masses.

In fact, Estre's rise to power would actually be worse for the majority of The Dominion, as she views the Bosmer and Khajiit as a lower class of "her" empire.

Mostly just for argument's sake, I want to say that if that's the only interpretation of what the VH are, its a weakness in the writing. There's no room to sympathise with that faction - in a narrative sense they serve only the based impulse to hoist a very loosely veiled Real World pariah that everyone can categorically just hate on.

Those sorts of stories fall short on value because they don't offer the opportunity to explore our own prejudices, or the innate complexity inherent in the world. And I think it misses the mark of Elder Scrolls story telling. If you can read one sentence and decide that they're just evil, there's no room for exploration. Its just 5 zones of "kick 'em out".

There's room for evil - sometimes in life you can look for nuance all you want, but a situation or person is just outright wrong. And there should be room for that in ES story writing too. But a story is always more interesting when there's more to the story.

M_Volsung

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

The veiled heritance would eventually go on to become the thalmor you deal with in TESV.

starkerealm

M_Volsung wrote: »

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

The veiled heritance would eventually go on to become the thalmor you deal with in TESV.

Oddly, no. It's the same ideological through line, but the Thalmor in ESO already have their ethnocentric bent, though they're not as radicalized.

starkerealm

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

marshill88 wrote: »

...while silencing rebel groups who (as far as I know) only want the right to protest and dissent from the elite class.

The Veiled Heritance wants to install their own leader onto the throne, and maintain the existing monarchical structure. It's about replacing Ayrenn with Estre, with the only major social change beyond that being the high elves becoming even more xenophobic. Not a cry for freedom from the oppressed masses.

In fact, Estre's rise to power would actually be worse for the majority of The Dominion, as she views the Bosmer and Khajiit as a lower class of "her" empire.

Mostly just for argument's sake, I want to say that if that's the only interpretation of what the VH are, its a weakness in the writing. There's no room to sympathise with that faction - in a narrative sense they serve only the based impulse to hoist a very loosely veiled Real World pariah that everyone can categorically just hate on.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that piece of history actually happened.

When you step past the ethnocentric bent of the VH, you're left with an example where one noble is trying to engage in a coup for the throne. Which, you know, also has a lot of historical precedence.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Those sorts of stories fall short on value because they don't offer the opportunity to explore our own prejudices, or the innate complexity inherent in the world. And I think it misses the mark of Elder Scrolls story telling. If you can read one sentence and decide that they're just evil, there's no room for exploration. Its just 5 zones of "kick 'em out".

Jagger Tharn.
The Mythic Dawn.
The Thalmor.
Alduin.
Mehrunes Dagon.

I mean, this is not a series with a lot of moral ambiguity in the main quests. It doesn't quantifiably remind you when you've done something evil, like joining the bloodthirsty schism of a Daedric cult that murders people... and really enjoys murdering people, but it's not like you can look at Jagger Tharn and go, "yeah, maybe he was right all along."

In fact, the only major villain I can think of in the series that has any real moral ambiguity, is Dagoth Ur. He is not the norm for TES villains.

Beyond that, the Veiled Heritance is only relevant in Auridon. By the time you leave that zone, the VH is no more. The next two zones continue the theme of court intrigue, with individuals who weren't members of the VH but are also interested in assuming the throne, and ideologically compatible. After that, we have a zone that has absolutely nothing to do with the VH, or the coup (as it's dealing with Bosmer politics), and then we have a zone with Imperial remnants lead by a member of the Tharn family.

That's not five zones of, "kick them out."

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

There's room for evil - sometimes in life you can look for nuance all you want, but a situation or person is just outright wrong. And there should be room for that in ES story writing too. But a story is always more interesting when there's more to the story.

The Veiled Heritance is a terrorist group of racists, who are so patriotic, they want to overthrow their nation's legitimate government. ZOS really doesn't need to rehabilitate them by saying, "at least they made the trains run on time."

RaikaNA

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

What's wrong with the Stormcloaks? The empire is weak.. they sold out... banning the worship of Talos... who founded the empire. The Nords have every right to stand up and fight for what they think is right for Skyrim.

Oreyn_Bearclaw

Totally agree. I would love more, shall we say, dark quest options.

I think it is generally much harder in an MMO for the writers to give consequences to your decisions and make them feel meaningful when questing. You cant exactly restart from an old save point if you take things too far. It also potentially makes future storylines more difficult to write and keep consistent with your players unique decisions over a long period.

Not saying it cant be done, an I am certainly behind the attempt as long as quest decisions don't hinder or lock you out of endgame in some way.

Combat is already story mode while questing. Shame the dialogue basically is as well.

MrDenimChicken

i would like for there to be any quest or dialogue options. 98% of the time its just mash the A button to the end. No having to make choices on what to say, no ultimate effect on the quest. The rare times we do get a "choice", it's at the very end of a conversation where we tell the quest giver what choice to make on some decision.

Narvuntien

This game normally goes with Judgemental and Forgiving in its quest choices. Personally I prefer that because that is how real people think. People are not moustache twirlingly eeeeevil but I get sometimes people like to role play that way.

starkerealm

RaikaNA wrote: »

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

What's wrong with the Stormcloaks? The empire is weak.. they sold out... banning the worship of Talos... who founded the empire. The Nords have every right to stand up and fight for what they think is right for Skyrim.

Ulfric is an Agent of the Thalmor. In fomenting further conflict in Skyrim, he's specifically doing The Dominion's bidding, and weakening The Empire.

He's clearly not happy about the situation, but he is still actively working to undermine and destabilize The Empire, and that's not due to his ideological position. He turned on The Empire because The Thalmor tricked him into believing that he was instrumental in their capture of The Imperial City.

The Stormcloaks themselves, are just his standing forces. They're also racists. (Can't remember if they hate Imperials and Redguards, but every other non-Nord is treated pretty poorly.)

bmnoble

RaikaNA wrote: »

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

What's wrong with the Stormcloaks? The empire is weak.. they sold out... banning the worship of Talos... who founded the empire. The Nords have every right to stand up and fight for what they think is right for Skyrim.

To do with this thread the part about "Skyrim is for the Nords" mentality the Stormcloaks adopted with their rebellion.

Same crap with the VH, "The Summerset isle's are for the High Elves" They want to drive out the other races from the dominion or make them subservient rather than equal partners.

And Ulfric was playing into the hands of the Thalmor, wasting both Nord and Imperial forces on a pointless war, while the Elves were able to prepare for the next one unhindered.

https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Thalmor_Dossier:_Ulfric_Stormcloak

Operational Notes:
Direct contact remains a possibility (under extreme circumstances), but in general the asset should be considered dormant. As long as the civil war proceeds in its current indecisive fashion, we should remain hands-off. The incident at Helgen is an example where an exception had to be made - obviously Ulfric's death would have dramatically increased the chance of an Imperial victory and thus harmed our overall position in Skyrim. (NOTE: The coincidental intervention of the dragon at Helgen is still under scrutiny. The obvious conclusion is that whoever is behind the dragons also has an interest in the continuation of the war, but we should not assume therefore that their goals align with our own.) A Stormcloak victory is also to be avoided, however, so even indirect aid to the Stormcloaks must be carefully managed.

Supreme_Atromancer

Well reasoned response, @starkerealm , cheers.

starkerealm wrote: »

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that piece of history actually happened.

When you step past the ethnocentric bent of the VH, you're left with an example where one noble is trying to engage in a coup for the throne. Which, you know, also has a lot of historical precedence.

All narratives- real world or fictional- can "step past" nuance and be reduced in such a way, but I'm arguing that leaves you with story with nothing to explore.

While a certain action might be a raw grab for power, there's always going to be a whole host of historical conditions, values, socioeconomic factors, personalities etc etc surrounding and shaping it. Discovering that those are sometimes relatable can challenge our notions and are more interesting than if all those factors are just "they are just bad people."

Jagger Tharn.
The Mythic Dawn.
The Thalmor.
Alduin.
Mehrunes Dagon.

Stormcloaks vs. "Imperials" (just Nords who don't support Ulfric)
Imperial story in general (but particularly in Skyrim and Morrowind)
The Reachmen/Forsworn vs. Nords/Silverbloods
Renrijira Kriin in Oblivion's Blackwood
House Telvanni vs. The Mages Guild
Wayrest vs. Daggerfall vs. Sentinel.

Series-defining and characteristic conflicts which add depth and explorability beyond "plain right vs. plain wrong".

Your examples show that raw evil exists, (though Mythic Dawn, Dagon and Alduin represent neutral destruction rather than evil per se., and offer an interesting perspective in its own right). As I pointed out earlier, I think there's a place for it

I believe you if you say I'm wrong about the relevance to the AD zones of the VH. Its been too long since I've played through the questline, and I may have exaggerated it. I do know that to this day, my main is cursed by high elves all across Tamriel for Estre's defeat, and they must have been intended as a very important element of what is meant to be "the Altmer story". Much like the Imperials and Stormcloaks are two faces of the Nordic story we explore in Skyrim. Except - there's no room for exploration. They're just dodgy, unrelatable, and with no redeeming element to their perspective.

The Veiled Heritance is a terrorist group of racists, who are so patriotic, they want to overthrow their nation's legitimate government. ZOS really doesn't need to rehabilitate them by saying, "at least they made the trains run on time."

The first line of your statement is the issue, because your second line would not be a great writing outcome for such a 2d-faction.

Supreme_Atromancer

Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »

Totally agree. I would love more, shall we say, dark quest options.

I think it is generally much harder in an MMO for the writers to give consequences to your decisions and make them feel meaningful when questing. You cant exactly restart from an old save point if you take things too far. It also potentially makes future storylines more difficult to write and keep consistent with your players unique decisions over a long period.

Not saying it cant be done, an I am certainly behind the attempt as long as quest decisions don't hinder or lock you out of endgame in some way.

Combat is already story mode while questing. Shame the dialogue basically is as well.

Great response, and I strongly agree.

But I do think that its a very important value and that ZOS took on that mandate when they took on the IP. Its a tough challenge, but I do really hope they engage it in the future.

Supreme_Atromancer

starkerealm wrote: »

RaikaNA wrote: »

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

What's wrong with the Stormcloaks? The empire is weak.. they sold out... banning the worship of Talos... who founded the empire. The Nords have every right to stand up and fight for what they think is right for Skyrim.

Ulfric is an Agent of the Thalmor. In fomenting further conflict in Skyrim, he's specifically doing The Dominion's bidding, and weakening The Empire.

He's clearly not happy about the situation, but he is still actively working to undermine and destabilize The Empire, and that's not due to his ideological position. He turned on The Empire because The Thalmor tricked him into believing that he was instrumental in their capture of The Imperial City.

The Stormcloaks themselves, are just his standing forces. They're also racists. (Can't remember if they hate Imperials and Redguards, but every other non-Nord is treated pretty poorly.)

Small nitpick; he's an "asset", not an agent. Not trying to call you out and I largely agree with what you're saying, but there's important nuance in those terms.

Also, I don't think its fair to call the Stormcloaks racist (although some clearly are). They are more nationalist. There are even High Elves and Dunmer who support Ulfric, and highlight that hard work in Windhelm will buy you acceptance, regardless of your race. There are also hints that aspects of Dunmer personality make it harder for them to do what they need to do to to get along with the Nords. Not to say the Nords are without blame. Those racists are still free to walk Windhelm, afterall. Just that its a very interesting issue and trying to boil it down to simple judgements are usually missing some of the nuance.

And this is kind of what I'm talking about more broadly. The fact that there ARE facets to these issues - points of view and nuance that we might have missed or not considered means that we are here, 10 years after that game launched, still turning those issues over and over. That for me is compelling writing.

starkerealm

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Well reasoned response, @starkerealm , cheers.

starkerealm wrote: »

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that piece of history actually happened.

When you step past the ethnocentric bent of the VH, you're left with an example where one noble is trying to engage in a coup for the throne. Which, you know, also has a lot of historical precedence.

All narratives- real world or fictional- can "step past" nuance and be reduced in such a way, but I'm arguing that leaves you with story with nothing to explore.

While a certain action might be a raw grab for power, there's always going to be a whole host of historical conditions, values, socioeconomic factors, personalities etc etc surrounding and shaping it. Discovering that those are sometimes relatable can challenge our notions and are more interesting than if all those factors are just "they are just bad people."

It's not that The Veiled Heritance are, "just bad people." It's that they're stooges.

I'm going, mostly, from memory here, but the Heritance themselves aren't the evil behind the plots, and it goes a long way towards why you were remembering them as being far more important in the overall story than they actually are.

We have two relevant characters, High Kinlady Estre, Prince Naemon.

Ayrenn is the legitimate ruler of Summerset, and the High Elves. However, she scampered off and disappeared without explanation for years before her father's death.

Naemon is Ayrenn's brother, and next in line for the throne after Ayrenn. When his father died and Ayrenn was nowhere to be found (she'd been gone for nearly 7 years at this point), he began the long, ritualized process to take the throne.

Ayrenn returned and restored her claim to the throne, while Naemon was in the process of ascending.

Estre is Naemon's wife.

This is when the Veiled Heritance came into the picture. It was an organization founded with the intention of undermining Ayrenn's rule. That's, literally, the entire reason for its existence in setting. It's leader, The Veiled Queen, seeks to remove Ayrenn, and either clam the Alinor throne for themselves or for Naemon. Thing is, the Veiled Heritance is lead by High Kinlady Estre.

This is where the lack of subtly comes in. The Heritence itself isn't particularly nuanced because the organization itself isn't. It's the result of royal political machinations. The average rank and file Heritence member is being manipulated by the Alinor royalty. They are, quite literally, disposable tools.

After Estre's death, Naemon is still conspiring to take the throne, and that plot does continue for two further zones. But, by the time you get to Grahtwood, the only surviving members of the Heritance are a handful of remnants.

Also, Estre is a Dagon cultist, and when her plans start to fall apart, she does open Oblivion Gates into the Deadlands.

The nuance with Naemon is that he isn't evil, but he is trying to usurp the throne.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

The Veiled Heritance is a terrorist group of racists, who are so patriotic, they want to overthrow their nation's legitimate government. ZOS really doesn't need to rehabilitate them by saying, "at least they made the trains run on time."

The first line of your statement is the issue, because your second line would not be a great writing outcome.

The second line was a specific historical reference.

Supreme_Atromancer

bmnoble wrote: »

RaikaNA wrote: »

bmnoble wrote: »

I would like more evil options.

As for the veiled heritance never really liked them they remind me too much of the Stormcloaks from Skyrim.

What's wrong with the Stormcloaks? The empire is weak.. they sold out... banning the worship of Talos... who founded the empire. The Nords have every right to stand up and fight for what they think is right for Skyrim.

To do with this thread the part about "Skyrim is for the Nords" mentality the Stormcloaks adopted with their rebellion.

Same crap with the VH, "The Summerset isle's are for the High Elves" They want to drive out the other races from the dominion or make them subservient rather than equal partners.

And Ulfric was playing into the hands of the Thalmor, wasting both Nord and Imperial forces on a pointless war, while the Elves were able to prepare for the next one unhindered.

https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Thalmor_Dossier:_Ulfric_Stormcloak

Operational Notes:
Direct contact remains a possibility (under extreme circumstances), but in general the asset should be considered dormant. As long as the civil war proceeds in its current indecisive fashion, we should remain hands-off. The incident at Helgen is an example where an exception had to be made - obviously Ulfric's death would have dramatically increased the chance of an Imperial victory and thus harmed our overall position in Skyrim. (NOTE: The coincidental intervention of the dragon at Helgen is still under scrutiny. The obvious conclusion is that whoever is behind the dragons also has an interest in the continuation of the war, but we should not assume therefore that their goals align with our own.) A Stormcloak victory is also to be avoided, however, so even indirect aid to the Stormcloaks must be carefully managed.

There is some evidence to suggest that Ulfric was a very flawed character. Many people who might have gotten behind his cause were alienated by his approach. But those who did support him supported his cause. Pride and strength are huge parts of the Nordic story. They live and die by it, you take that away from them and they are just tall Imperials. The Nords didn't want to be told they couldn't worship Talos by people they had spilled blood to defend.

The Imperials have a lot wanting. Tulius is a jack*** who embodies a lot of what's wrong with Imperial mentality. I chose the Imperials in my main playthrough, but mostly because it was the least of two evils. Neither faction was ultimately wrong. Its just a matter of what will work.

starkerealm

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Small nitpick; he's an "asset", not an agent. Not trying to call you out and I largely agree with what you're saying, but there's important nuance in those terms.

Correct. The major distinction however is how little regard the Thalmor have for him.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Also, I don't think its fair to call the Stormcloaks racist (although some clearly are). They are more nationalist.

The faction that belts out, "Skyrim is for the Nords!' isn't racist. [Citation needed]

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

There are even High Elves and Dunmer who support Ulfric, and highlight that hard work in Windhelm will buy you acceptance, regardless of your race.

A valid point, if that support is entirely voluntary. It's not unreasonable that some people in the city genuinely support Ulfric, but the Windhelm we see in TES5 is one where drunken thugs are given carte blanche from the city guard to harass Dark Elves and Argonians. In that environment, any voiced support for Ulfric becomes questionable. Is it because they genuinely believe in him, or is it appeasement, in the hope that they won't be next?

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

There are also hints that aspects of Dunmer personality make it harder for them to do what they need to do to to get along with the Nords. Not to say the Nords are without blame. Those racists are still free to walk Windhelm, afterall. Just that its a very interesting issue and trying to boil it down to simple judgements are usually missing some of the nuance.

The nuance is that those racists are allowed to wander free and do as they please, while being tacitly endorsed by the administration. While they are technically independent of the provincial government, they are used as a tool of oppression.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

And this is kind of what I'm talking about more broadly. The fact that there ARE facets to these issues - points of view and nuance that we might have missed or not considered means that we are here, 10 years after that game launched, still turning those issues over and over. That for me is compelling writing.

It's not the quality of the writing, it's the number of people who didn't pay any attention to it on the way through. Most players (especially ones who favor the Stormcloaks) never read the Dossiers. That does lead to conversations, not because of the quality of the writing, but that many people consumed the content, and made their minds up, without paying any attention to the writing.

Not sure I'd call that, "compelling."

Supreme_Atromancer

starkerealm wrote: »

Correct. The major distinction however is how little regard the Thalmor have for him.

No, regard doesn't distinguish agent and asset, because you can have regard or no regard for either. The distinction between is in the intention of the subject.

A valid point, if that support is entirely voluntary. It's not unreasonable that some people in the city genuinely support Ulfric, but the Windhelm we see in TES5 is one where drunken thugs are given carte blanche from the city guard to harass Dark Elves and Argonians. In that environment, any voiced support for Ulfric becomes questionable. Is it because they genuinely believe in him, or is it appeasement, in the hope that they won't be next?

Well ANY voice is unreliable. In a world where the Grey Quarter Dark Elves can, and do, voluntarily express discontent, fear can't be the only reason someone might express support. You just have to accept that just maybe its not so black-and-white as "stormcloaks=bad." Similar complexity is apparent in other stories in the game, so I feel like that's the actual intention here, too.

It's not the quality of the writing, it's the number of people who didn't pay any attention to it on the way through. Most players (especially ones who favor the Stormcloaks) never read the Dossiers. That does lead to conversations, not because of the quality of the writing, but that many people consumed the content, and made their minds up, without paying any attention to the writing.

Its nice that there was enough stuff that you have to pay attention to and explore though, right? I'm not really hoping to argue that Nords are racists or Stormcloaks were right. We are both showing why we believe what we believe, and the game story has enough depth to support those narratives. That's why I compare it to ESO.

sedi

Meaningful choice is something ESO doesn't do very well imo. It's a shame because so many good quests and interesting characters.

MirandaSharp

How about a reputation system where you can make your character more evil/good through your actions and you become reputable for your deeds throughout the lands. At certain thresholds quests will unlock with story lines like the ones you mention. Undermine the authority, assassinate the king or even become the evil dictator yourself. Good characters will get quests like becoming a noble knight, join a society of righteous Paladins etc...

A system like that gives the player more options for role play and character building. I very much enjoyed the quips of the guards in Skyrim about the reputation you earned through your actions, so why not take that to the next level?

Kiralyn2000

Maybe it's a side-effect of the MMOs I've played in the past, but I don't really expect "meaningful choice" from an MMO - they have to keep their overall plotline running on it's rails, after all. Everyone has to finish up Expansion 8 at roughly the same spot, because that's where Expansion 9 is going to be starting from.


(that said, I'm fine with that. I've never personally wanted to play 'evil' characters or plotlines. I've never played any of the GTA games, for instance. My Shepards are all Paragons. Etc.)



...as for the Veiled Heritance, they're an Obviously Evil group of virulent racists, which is reinforced every year during the Jester Festival when my alts end up going to the College of Blatant Racism to prank the professors. I have no understanding why anyone would want to side with, or sympathize with, them as they're presented in this game.


edit: but, well, I've been happily playing 'save the world' and 'you're the Hero™' games for almost 40 years now. So maybe it's just not in my personality to understand that. /shrug

Sylvermynx

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Maybe it's a side-effect of the MMOs I've played in the past, but I don't really expect "meaningful choice" from an MMO - they have to keep their overall plotline running on it's rails, after all. Everyone has to finish up Expansion 8 at roughly the same spot, because that's where Expansion 9 is going to be starting from.


(that said, I'm fine with that. I've never personally wanted to play 'evil' characters or plotlines. I've never played any of the GTA games, for instance. My Shepards are all Paragons. Etc.)



...as for the Veiled Heritance, they're an Obviously Evil group of virulent racists, which is reinforced every year during the Jester Festival when my alts end up going to the College of Blatant Racism to prank the professors. I have no understanding why anyone would want to side with, or sympathize with, them as they're presented in this game.


edit: but, well, I've been happily playing 'save the world' and 'you're the Hero™' games for almost 40 years now. So maybe it's just not in my personality to understand that. /shrug

Yes, that's my side of the story too. Since the mid 70's I've been the goody two shoes "game hero". I couldn't play the bad girl if I had to!

VaranisArano

Even in the main TES games, you only get so many choices. You can play as evil, but you can't serve Dagoth Ur, join the Mythic Dawn in allegiance to Mehrunes Dagon, or sign up with the Thalmor to beat both the Empire and Stormcloaks. You can roleplay, maybe, but you can't do that in actual canon gameplay.

Here's the thing - that type of counter-narrative storytelling takes time. Originally, there was supposed to be a House Dagoth joinable faction in Morrowind...it got cut. More joinable factions = more time, effort, and costs for the Devs.

So when you want ESO to offer you more factions than they currently do - not just in the writing but as playable factions - are you willing to wait for it? Are you willing to pay for it?

If we want the Iron Wheel or the Chantry of Akatosh to be a joinable faction so we can play the "bad guys" of those DLC, you've basically doubled the zone story content for ZOS. Are we willing to wait and then pay for that?

If we want the Veiled Heritance to be a joinable faction, we're basically going to need an alternate questline for Auridon, Grahtwood, and Greenshade unless you feel like losing. Again, are we willing to wait and pay for ZOS to design a full alternate questline for at least three zones with bits and pieces in 3 other zones?

How about the Waking Flame? Can you imagine what that would add - in terms of cool story...and in items of time, effort, and costs - to the Blackwood Chapter if we got to play as members of the Waking Flame (who presumably don't succeed in destroying the world, for obvious reasons)?


At a certain point, understand that game development takes time, money, and effort. You didn't get to play every single opposing faction in the TES singleplayer games...I'm not sure that it's remotely feasible for ESO to do so with its quick development time for Chapters and DLC.

whitecrow

I think it would require a redesign of the entire game. Apart from TG and DB, you're the hero of Tamriel. See how people comment as you walk by in towns.

I've always felt that some quest lines should be exclusive. Like if you joined one group you couldn't join the other. It would make choices feel more relevant, and would also be an incentive to create additional characters to explore the other options.

In Skyrim you can reject the DB's offer and become their enemy. It would be nice if there were some kind of split story like that in ESO.

But I'm not sure they could bring that in and leave what they have intact.

adriant1978

I don't think outright "play as the villain" can really work because most villains tend to have goals which are at odds with the continuation of the game, e.g. if the Veiled Heritance win then that effectively eliminates the Aldmeri Dominion as a functioning Alliance.

What I would like to see though would be more options to play an antihero, someone who is prepared to make morally questionable decisions while still serving the overall interests of the story. It would have been nice if the game had some kind of karma/morality system where NPC reactions to your character would be influenced by your willingness to be self-sacrificing vs self-serving.

Supreme_Atromancer

VaranisArano wrote: »

Even in the main TES games, you only get so many choices. You can play as evil, but you can't serve Dagoth Ur, join the Mythic Dawn in allegiance to Mehrunes Dagon, or sign up with the Thalmor to beat both the Empire and Stormcloaks. You can roleplay, maybe, but you can't do that in actual canon gameplay.

Here's the thing - that type of counter-narrative storytelling takes time. Originally, there was supposed to be a House Dagoth joinable faction in Morrowind...it got cut. More joinable factions = more time, effort, and costs for the Devs.

So when you want ESO to offer you more factions than they currently do - not just in the writing but as playable factions - are you willing to wait for it? Are you willing to pay for it?

If we want the Iron Wheel or the Chantry of Akatosh to be a joinable faction so we can play the "bad guys" of those DLC, you've basically doubled the zone story content for ZOS. Are we willing to wait and then pay for that?

If we want the Veiled Heritance to be a joinable faction, we're basically going to need an alternate questline for Auridon, Grahtwood, and Greenshade unless you feel like losing. Again, are we willing to wait and pay for ZOS to design a full alternate questline for at least three zones with bits and pieces in 3 other zones?

How about the Waking Flame? Can you imagine what that would add - in terms of cool story...and in items of time, effort, and costs - to the Blackwood Chapter if we got to play as members of the Waking Flame (who presumably don't succeed in destroying the world, for obvious reasons)?


At a certain point, understand that game development takes time, money, and effort. You didn't get to play every single opposing faction in the TES singleplayer games...I'm not sure that it's remotely feasible for ESO to do so with its quick development time for Chapters and DLC.

Its a fair point to make, I don't disagree that it needs to be considered. But those things aren't impossible, its just a matter of where they sit on the list of priorities. I personally think that the quality of storytelling and exploration should have a very high priority in a game that wants to tackle (and benefit from) a franchise known for its exploration and storytelling. They were never advertising to the hardcore Elder Scrolls crowd with "satisfying Elder Scrolls writing isn't feasible", they were (and are) doing their best to make an authentic Elder Scrolls experience, and this is an important thing to think about.

VaranisArano

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Even in the main TES games, you only get so many choices. You can play as evil, but you can't serve Dagoth Ur, join the Mythic Dawn in allegiance to Mehrunes Dagon, or sign up with the Thalmor to beat both the Empire and Stormcloaks. You can roleplay, maybe, but you can't do that in actual canon gameplay.

Here's the thing - that type of counter-narrative storytelling takes time. Originally, there was supposed to be a House Dagoth joinable faction in Morrowind...it got cut. More joinable factions = more time, effort, and costs for the Devs.

So when you want ESO to offer you more factions than they currently do - not just in the writing but as playable factions - are you willing to wait for it? Are you willing to pay for it?

If we want the Iron Wheel or the Chantry of Akatosh to be a joinable faction so we can play the "bad guys" of those DLC, you've basically doubled the zone story content for ZOS. Are we willing to wait and then pay for that?

If we want the Veiled Heritance to be a joinable faction, we're basically going to need an alternate questline for Auridon, Grahtwood, and Greenshade unless you feel like losing. Again, are we willing to wait and pay for ZOS to design a full alternate questline for at least three zones with bits and pieces in 3 other zones?

How about the Waking Flame? Can you imagine what that would add - in terms of cool story...and in items of time, effort, and costs - to the Blackwood Chapter if we got to play as members of the Waking Flame (who presumably don't succeed in destroying the world, for obvious reasons)?


At a certain point, understand that game development takes time, money, and effort. You didn't get to play every single opposing faction in the TES singleplayer games...I'm not sure that it's remotely feasible for ESO to do so with its quick development time for Chapters and DLC.

Its a fair point to make, I don't disagree that it needs to be considered. But those things aren't impossible, its just a matter of where they sit on the list of priorities. I personally think that the quality of storytelling and exploration should have a very high priority in a game that wants to tackle (and benefit from) a franchise known for its exploration and storytelling. They were never advertising to the hardcore Elder Scrolls crowd with "satisfying Elder Scrolls writing isn't feasible", they were (and are) doing their best to make an authentic Elder Scrolls experience, and this is an important thing to think about.

I'm not sure I understand this type of comparison. ESO vs "an authentic Elder Scrolls experience."

First, the singleplayer TES games didn't allow players to join every single faction and have a fully realized questline. That's especially true of enemy factions. The Winterborn of ESO get basically the same treatment as the Silver Hand in Skyrim. It's valid to ask ZOS for more content like the Civil War if that's what people want, but it's not valid when people act like having non-joinable factions isn't also part of the TES experience.

Second, I do think it's necessary to understand that lots of people say "authentic TES experience" when what they mean is "Singleplayer RPG". There is no way for an MMORPG making a quarterly release schedule to match what a singleplayer game with years of development time can do. No way. We just aren't going to get content with the depth of TES 3 or TES 5 with only 6 months between DLC/Chapter releases. Again, it's valid to ask for content like the Civil War if that's what people like, but at least think about the time, effort, and costs involved, and why an MMO might not want to delay their regular content release to do it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure the ESO Devs heard their playerbase's demand concerning factions loud and clear: players don't want factions interfering with their gameplay. Players couldn't even accept being locked into their chosen factions storyline, hence Cadwell's Silver & Gold. One Tamriel removed most of the story and faction instancing for good reason. Players want to play together, not be segmented out based on which faction they chose - be it EP/DC/AD or be it siding with the Winterborn/Orcs or Iron Wheel/TG, etc. I'm really not convinced there's a huge appetite for this sort of factionalized gameplay...and even if there is, I can't really blame the Devs for not dipping their toes into the water a second time after the way their original intentions were roundly panned.