Morale.

EDIT: There are a few consequences that do indeed change the reward that you get but no consequence.
Using the mage guild last quest as an example, you get given two different options and depending on what you choose depend on your reward.

I took the two skill points because I didn't need the bound purple staff. Sorry gurL. :x

Celestrael wrote: »

I took the two skill points because I didn't need the bound purple staff. Sorry gurL. :x

You and me both.

I agree. There are far too few quests where the so-called "choices" you are given have any meaningful consequences; usually, it's only a matter of arriving at the conclusion in a slightly different way and it won't matter in the long run one bit. Likewise, some side quests that are presented as having a lot of significance to the main zone story can be safely skipped and it won't affect the outcome.

BuggeX wrote: »

There is. having 2 Skillpoints or not

Options in this quest aren't clear cut jerk/white knight. There are legitimate reasons for both decisions.

While being a "good person" is a very subjective thing, I like to think for the most part I would be considered to be one. I'm also a bit of a softie. It's funny really. Even with it being a game, I find myself unable to make some of the more morally questionable actions. They make me feel bad, even if they are just pixels and flavor text.

Something about doing "the bad" things makes me feel guilty.

Its still cool to have choices.

Elder Scrolls was never about positive morality, the most important characters are the Daedric Princes, who are clearly evil. ESO mostly has inversed morale, where being evil makes much more sense.

Vampire and Werewolf both give you power with no real drawbacks, and both require you to sell your character's soul to a Daedric Prince. If you don't align with a Daedric Prince your character is going to be noticably weaker.

The Aedra really play no role at all in any of the ES games, especially in ESO.

Elder Scrolls always preferred evil over good. Templars are the only "good" class in the game, and guess what they are by far the weakest. Coincidence?

Ghanima_Atreides wrote: »

Zsymon wrote: »

Elder Scrolls was never about positive morality, the most important characters are the Daedric Princes, who are clearly evil.

Elder Scrolls always preferred evil over good. Templars are the only "good" class in the game, and guess what they are by far the weakest. Coincidence? Maybe.

Daedric Princes are, technically, neither good nor evil, but capable of both. That way Meridia is one of the good guys in ESO but she was helping the main antagonist in an Oblivion DLC, for example.

And I don't think any class is either "good" or "evil", that depends on how the player chooses to build their character. There are many vampire Templars for example and Sorcerers who don't use some of the darker powers they have at their disposal.

Meridia is the only one heh.. and they chose her, a Daedric Prince, to play the role of the saviour in the story, rather than an Aedra. I do wonder why they have the Aedra at all in this series.

Nightblades have skills named Strife, Crippling Grasp, Agony, Soul Siphon, Soul Harvest.. Sorcerers have skill trees named Dark Magic and Daedric Summoning, clearly evil classes in and of themselves, regardless of what skills you use. Dragonknight is kind of neutral, but a surprising amount of Dremora use Dragonknight skills.

You are mixing up "class" and "character". Being a vampire as a Templar doesn't change anything about the Templar class being "good", it just makes your character itself evil.

I guess you have a point.

BuggeX wrote: »

There is. having 2 Skillpoints or not

I always give "her" to Sheo when I play evil character


Anyway yeah, no consequences in terms of different gaming experience. Altough players that roleplay their characters (just like me) are very dependant on these decisions. It's what makes my character to be more alive, to have a character and a personality of their own.
My old Nord Templar was pure good.
My old Imperial Nightblade was pure evil.
My current Imperial Dragonknight is something between, mostly evil. Living by the creed "Ends justify the means."
Soon Ima roll out an Altmer sorc that is gonna be not something like any of these guys.

"That's what makes the game fun to me and these no-consenquences quest do have a onsequence to me. That being the shape of my character."
'Me, 7/22/2015'
lol

It's hard to have a morality system in an MMO.

They tried it with SWTOR and it's one of the features that brought a lot of complaints.

You can't play that game how you want. You have to stick to either light side or dark side when it comes to dialogue to max out your light/dark side. If you don't then you can't equip higher level relics because they require light/dark at 5.

In single player games, morality systems are usually terrible. It's either be a sparkly saint or an absolute tool. You go from kissing babies to kicking puppies, there is no middle ground.

Meaningful, game impacting choices rarely work in an MMO setting.

I respond based on the toon I'm playing. I have "good" toons and "bad" toons. Some are more noble than others.