Why Is Everything Intended To Be "Cool" or Otherwise In ESO Inherently Evil? Where Is The Good?

starkerealm · August 2017

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

Can we morph in to Aedra (despite them sometimes blurring the line)?

No. Absolutely not.

If you're really wanting to play a character who stands against evil, your options are any class except the sorc, and the Fighters Guild skill line for your extra monster smiting needs.

Oakmontowls_ESO · August 2017

As multiple people have adjust stated, there is no true good and evil in the elder scrolls lore. Even alduin from skyrim isn't truly bad but is just a universe restart button. Or the daedra are simply beings of change. In short the whole elderscrolls lore seems to be a social commentary on nothing being truly black and white.
As another example, lorkan is simultaneously the bad guy in the eyes of mer and the good guy in the eyes of men.

ThePrinceOfBargains · August 2017

Tryxus wrote: »

TheMaster wrote: »

The problem with this is that pacifists don't fight. They become doctors. Saying you're only going to "incapacitate" a group of armed enemies that are trying to kill you is complete nonsense. This isn't Batman and you're not a comic book character. And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation. Our characters are killers and have no problem killing. Why they have no problem killing is up to the player to decide.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, new daily missions where you act as a vigilante and use tools provided by the mission to arrest weakened enemies as a requirement from the quest provider. But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work for these games.

I once made a pacifist (kinda ) in Skyrim: my pure Khajiit Thief Mojar-do. He only had perks in the 6 thief skills (Sneak, Light Armor, Pickpocket, Lockpicking, Speech and Alchemy)

Going through Skyrim was a matter of sneaking through places, talking my way out of fights, popping potions and stealing stuff that could come in handy... all the while protecting the holds from the dragons. Not really a "good" guy, but a pacifist nonetheless (This one hates getting his paws bloody)

I've heard of people doing that. Never tried it. That actually sounds pretty fun; something I really want to try the next time I play Skyrim.

Tryxus · August 2017

starkerealm wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

Can we morph in to Aedra (despite them sometimes blurring the line)?

No. Absolutely not.

If you're really wanting to play a character who stands against evil, your options are any class except the sorc, and the Fighters Guild skill line for your extra monster smiting needs.

I'd say the only "good" classes are Templar and Warden and even they can go over to the "dark side" (Zealots and Gravesingers)

SirGabenOfSteamia · August 2017

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

Can we morph in to Aedra (despite them sometimes blurring the line)? Maybe something divine in nature that hates evil? Or something else that doesn't involve death, the underworld, or creepiness? Make us look like something celestial, and angel-like for a change, Zen.

Give us abilities named something like: Incorruptible, Begone, Preservation, I Swear, Chant of the Oath, I'd rather die. And this class would be immune to being turned by anything. Yet these games fool our children in to believing that evil is the most powerful force on earth; and that's a lie.

The Fighter's Guild and Mages' Guilds are dedicated to fighting Daedra and ending the planemeld. They were founded for that sole reason. By joining either your character is pretty much devoting their selves to the same cause.

Aedra are like gods. To be able to morph into one would be insane. I'm unaware as to whether or not lesser Aedra are still classified as deities, but even if they are, to have an entire playable race with similarities to beings that had to literally escape from Mundus in order to preserve their power would be ridiculously lore-breaking.

This game is rated "M." If we're being honest, kids shouldn't even be playing it.

Regardless, ESO is a roleplaying game. You're meant to be whoever you want in it. Make an original character, you know. People are allowed to choose whichever alignment they want, whichever backstory they want. Make your own, who cares. To say that A GAME teaches kids that "evil is the most powerful thing on Earth" --- even though the game isn't even set on Earth--- is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

The entirety of the main plot is about banishing a Daedric Prince, which are pretty much supervillains, and his minions from Tamriel in order to stop the planemeld, which is the process of Molag Bal drawing the Mundus into his own realm and enslaving human and merkind. Where's the evil in that?

Even the Dark Brotherhood isn't inherently evil. The Dark Brotherhood tracks down and kills those who have wronged someone else in some way. And let it be said that one of those wrongs may have been murder or massacre, so where's the wrong in judgement? Don't we do that in real life? Have you ever heard of lawful execution?

Honestly, it's a game. Calm down.

starkerealm · August 2017

Oakmontowls_ESO wrote: »

As multiple people have adjust stated, there is no true good and evil in the elder scrolls lore. Even alduin from skyrim isn't truly bad but is just a universe restart button. Or the daedra are simply beings of change. In short the whole elderscrolls lore seems to be a social commentary on nothing being truly black and white.
As another example, lorkan is simultaneously the bad guy in the eyes of mer and the good guy in the eyes of men.

That's not entirely true. There is good and evil in TES, but, there's no external confirmation provided. No one steps in and confirms what you already know. You're left to evaluate the morality of your actions on your own.

You can do truly evil things in TES, but no authoritative voice will step in and say, "okay, you get a red team point for that."

By the same measure, there are cosmic forces in TES that do evil things. There are cosmic forces that do good. These don't always align, and even individual beings can switch between being a catalyst for good, and being monstrous depending on what's happening. It's not really moral relativity so much as their motives are complex.

Within that context, it's easy to abdicate and say, "well, stuff is morally gray," but that's not really true. The morality involved can be assessed based on the actions taken. It's just that no one will come in, tap you on the shoulder, and remind you that you just did an evil thing.

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

TheMaster wrote: »

The problem with this is that pacifists don't fight. They become doctors. Saying you're only going to "incapacitate" a group of armed enemies that are trying to kill you is complete nonsense. This isn't Batman and you're not a comic book character. And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation. Our characters are killers and have no problem killing. Why they have no problem killing is up to the player to decide.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, new daily missions where you act as a vigilante and use tools provided by the mission to arrest weakened enemies as a requirement from the quest provider. But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work for these games.

That's ridiculous. That's like you implying that a healer can't heal without killing. Have you ever heard of a taser? What do you think they do? Kill? Nope, they incapacitate and quite effectively. The passive class would be a support role and offer great openings for others to have an easier time in battle.

You trying to substantiate a point by comparing one fantasy with another is silly. All you did was make my point by stressing that "And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation." Our characters being killers as you put it is the whole reason for the OP my friend.

"But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work (for me) for these games." Is more accurate.

starkerealm · August 2017

Tryxus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

Can we morph in to Aedra (despite them sometimes blurring the line)?

No. Absolutely not.

If you're really wanting to play a character who stands against evil, your options are any class except the sorc, and the Fighters Guild skill line for your extra monster smiting needs.

I'd say the only "good" classes are Templar and Warden and even they can go over to the "dark side" (Zealots and Gravesingers)

Anyone can be evil. I mean, that's a truth to the real world as well. "The first rule of the fanatic: When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy."

That said, a "noble" Sorcerer will still be a Fight-Fire-with-Fire type. Two of their skill lines are dedicated to delving into the dark arts. That doesn't mean you can't play one that way. It's a legitimate approach, and if you're interesting in role-playing that kind of a character... well, there you are.

The Dragon Knights are, just that, knights. Nothing prevents you from playing one as a noble, virtuous, warrior, if you really wanted to. They're pulling from Akaviri magical traditions, so nothing inherently evil there.

If you want to play your Nightblade as a Witchhunter, or Inquisitor, nothing's stopping you. As with the sorc, you're looking at a slightly more nuanced approach to good and evil, than if you wanted to play a Paladin style Templar, but the option is certainly open to you. Nothing about the class makes you evil, it just suggests a more subtle approach to your problems.

starkerealm · August 2017

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

TheMaster wrote: »

The problem with this is that pacifists don't fight. They become doctors. Saying you're only going to "incapacitate" a group of armed enemies that are trying to kill you is complete nonsense. This isn't Batman and you're not a comic book character. And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation. Our characters are killers and have no problem killing. Why they have no problem killing is up to the player to decide.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, new daily missions where you act as a vigilante and use tools provided by the mission to arrest weakened enemies as a requirement from the quest provider. But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work for these games.

That's ridiculous. That's like you implying that a healer can't heal without killing. Have you ever heard of a taser? What do you think they do?

Cause cardiac arrest and kill the victim in a sizable portion of cases. But, hey, at least it gives you the capacity to inflict excruciating pain on the unsuspecting, because that's a good thing, right?

max_only · August 2017

It's possible. It's been done before.

https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/4ib0bw/introducing_esos_first_nokill_vet/

FoolishHuman · August 2017

Tryxus wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

Can we morph in to Aedra (despite them sometimes blurring the line)?

No. Absolutely not.

If you're really wanting to play a character who stands against evil, your options are any class except the sorc, and the Fighters Guild skill line for your extra monster smiting needs.

I'd say the only "good" classes are Templar and Warden and even they can go over to the "dark side" (Zealots and Gravesingers)

How are templars and wardens "good"? I always wonder why people think that. Remember that there is neither divine nor nature magic in this universe, these classes pretend that they use "aedric" or nature magic though, in essence lying to the masses. Just because something looks good or someone acts as if they are morally just doesn't make it so. Morality and therefore good and evil in the elder scrolls universe are subjective, it's not d&d where there are universal forces of good and evil.
Anyway, you can't play the antagonists in this game, so every player is on the "good" side anyway. If we could join the worm cult and help enslave the world that would be a different thing, but it's not possible. In fact there is no elder scrolls game where you could join the antagonists. (well daggerfall might be one, but it's hard to say whos in the right there) Vampire and werewolf skill-lines are just tools, they don't make you automatically evil. And in these games even the dark brotherhood very often targets criminals that got away or other disreputable people.

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

FoolishHuman wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

It's this brain-washing in to killing everything that has lead many in to ignoring well-written story-lines in eagerness of speedily getting to the next fight. And then most wonder why they're getting bored? It's because of the monotony and desensitizing they've been bombarded by. It's why the sight of blood doesn't make us squeamish anymore, and why special effects in action movies rarely impress us anymore. We are desensitized. So of course playing as a pacifist would be boring to most ignoring the fact that such a play-style would require the greatest strength of character.

Then why are there tons of sports, racing, puzzle and simulation games? The Sims is one of the most successful franchises for video games, sports games make up the most profit for companies like EA. Puzzle games on mobile devices make millions. This genre of fantasy games is just a niche like everything else. And in this genre you are a knight in shining armor that slays monsters. As I said, you are just looking at the wrong place if that's not your kind of thing.

While talking about something similar, you still went off topic. That's uncanny all in to itself. The topic is specifically MMOs, and more specifically fantasy MMOs. Even more to the point is the option to play as a character that does not have to kill to get ahead in the game; almost similar to following the Thieves Guild code.

I clearly referenced what I was alluding to when I typed "...lead many in to ignoring well-written story-lines in eagerness of speedily getting to the next fight." So sports, puzzles, simulations, racing (of all things - goodness) couldn't possibly have been what I was referring to.

Here's an analogy: I always advice people to not be that guy that hears someone complain about something like, "Something needs to be done about all these nice looking long sleeve shirts, because it's summer, and its hot. Where are the short-sleeves?" And then some "smart guy" comes along and suggests that short-sleeves aren't necessary ... Just get your arms amputated and you won't ever again have to worry about sleeves (which is similar to telling someone to play a new game, and leave the game they want improvements on alone entirely). So they ignore the good suggestion of a shorter-sleeve just for the sake of opposing change and encourage a completely non-supportive idea. LOL - that's really dumb. But seriously ...

ThePrinceOfBargains · August 2017

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

TheMaster wrote: »

The problem with this is that pacifists don't fight. They become doctors. Saying you're only going to "incapacitate" a group of armed enemies that are trying to kill you is complete nonsense. This isn't Batman and you're not a comic book character. And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation. Our characters are killers and have no problem killing. Why they have no problem killing is up to the player to decide.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, new daily missions where you act as a vigilante and use tools provided by the mission to arrest weakened enemies as a requirement from the quest provider. But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work for these games.

That's ridiculous. That's like you implying that a healer can't heal without killing. Have you ever heard of a taser? What do you think they do? Kill? Nope, they incapacitate and quite effectively. The passive class would be a support role and offer great openings for others to have an easier time in battle.

You trying to substantiate a point by comparing one fantasy with another is silly. All you did was make my point by stressing that "And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation." Our characters being killers as you put it is the whole reason for the OP my friend.

"But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work (for me) for these games." Is more accurate.

"The passive class would be a support class", So you don't mind helping people kill? What's the difference? If that's the case, you can just be a healer. There's no point in what you're suggesting.

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

TheMaster wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

TheMaster wrote: »

The problem with this is that pacifists don't fight. They become doctors. Saying you're only going to "incapacitate" a group of armed enemies that are trying to kill you is complete nonsense. This isn't Batman and you're not a comic book character. And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation. Our characters are killers and have no problem killing. Why they have no problem killing is up to the player to decide.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, new daily missions where you act as a vigilante and use tools provided by the mission to arrest weakened enemies as a requirement from the quest provider. But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work for these games.

That's ridiculous. That's like you implying that a healer can't heal without killing. Have you ever heard of a taser? What do you think they do? Kill? Nope, they incapacitate and quite effectively. The passive class would be a support role and offer great openings for others to have an easier time in battle.

You trying to substantiate a point by comparing one fantasy with another is silly. All you did was make my point by stressing that "And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation." Our characters being killers as you put it is the whole reason for the OP my friend.

"But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work (for me) for these games." Is more accurate.

"The passive class would be a support class", So you don't mind helping people kill? What's the difference? If that's the case, you can just be a healer. There's no point in what you're suggesting.

Maybe this will help you overstand what I mean. It's like having food prepared for you. You're not allowed in the kitchen, and the only thing that is ever given to you is eggs. Yeah they make the best darn eggs, and you enjoy eating them, but you eventually demand that you get a side of bacon with it for a change. You're told, "No, because I have never given you bacon before." This only creates a circular argument and makes your point at the same time. They would make bacon if they would just start doing it. But as long as they refuse to make the addition, nobody can get used to it.

It is evident that choice and option has been removed or never existed, so it would at least be nice if a request to have a choice and option were acknowledged.

As it stands according to the scenario of my analogy you would have to go elsewhere to get that bacon and run the risk of not having the eggs you know you enjoyed. It's sort of a proverbial "My road or the high road," and that's never fun in a game or out of it.

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

starkerealm wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

TheMaster wrote: »

The problem with this is that pacifists don't fight. They become doctors. Saying you're only going to "incapacitate" a group of armed enemies that are trying to kill you is complete nonsense. This isn't Batman and you're not a comic book character. And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation. Our characters are killers and have no problem killing. Why they have no problem killing is up to the player to decide.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, new daily missions where you act as a vigilante and use tools provided by the mission to arrest weakened enemies as a requirement from the quest provider. But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work for these games.

That's ridiculous. That's like you implying that a healer can't heal without killing. Have you ever heard of a taser? What do you think they do?

Cause cardiac arrest and kill the victim in a sizable portion of cases. But, hey, at least it gives you the capacity to inflict excruciating pain on the unsuspecting, because that's a good thing, right?

We're not talking about their ability to kill. We're talking about the intended purpose of it not killing. Heck, swords don't have to be used for killing either. They can be used to disarm. We've seen it many times in sword battles. So your mentioning statistics holds no weight as long as there is a choice not to kill in order to accomplish the goal. Once again you made my point for me. There are many different ways to incapacitate someone - not all are potentially fatal - and you know it. And for the record excruciating pain isn't death, so you ask most people if they'd rather deal with a little temporary pain or die, and I bet you the majority would choose temporary pain. If excruciating pain weren't tolerable, most of the human race wouldn't be here.

Stop running away with things. Nobody is talking about making the target suffer as an alternative. That's all in your seemingly cynical mind.

starkerealm · August 2017

Okay, forgive me if I'm reading the wrong thing into your analogy, @Ethromelb14_ESO. It sounds like you want non-violent solutions to your gameplay.

I mean, I understand that, I can kinda respect it to a point. But, at the same time, the core gameplay loop is focused on violence. There really isn't much to get away from that, not in a themepark structured game.

When you get into the players who run pacifistic playthroughs, that's intentionally subverting the intended design goals. Now, there's nothing wrong with doing so, but at the same time, it's not what the developers were planning on.

As is, ESO already gives you options to avoid getting into unnecessary combat. Hell, a couple patches ago, I was running a NB build where I rarely got into combat at all outside of necessary encounters. But, that said, the primary focus for ESO is on using violence to deal with the situations presented. Sometimes alternatives are available, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

If you want alternative options, there are other games out there that really cater to that. Which isn't something I want to say, but, that is a different genre from the kind of fantasy adventure ESO is designed to facilitate.

Animal_Mother · August 2017

I would imagine that it's hard to be the Hero of Tamriel while the main protagonist refuses to do anything.

The game starts out with unknown forces either murdering you or forcing you into slavery. Your choices are to accept this fate or to fight against it. Fighting against it, awakens you to the evil taking place throughout Tamriel; even as you complete quests as seen from the other sides of the conflict in Caldwell's Gold and Silver, you discover not everything in the game is black and white and even the side you choose is capable of atrocities against their primary foes.

I didn't want to become the Hero of Tamriel; it was forced upon me. If my character had accepted either death or slavery as an option, the game would've ended right after the opening scene. And if you accept this fate, you saying that this behavior is acceptable in the world. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

By my character taking an active stance against these evils, generally through killing or destroying them, Tamriel is a better place. There's less slavery, less violence, hell, I even brought together three warring sides together to face a powerful evil. Could I have done that, if I had stayed a soul-shriven or a slave?

Passive is not an option. Even in the real modern world, good life cannot happen without acting upon the lives of other life.

As @starkerealm pointed out, tasers can injure, maim or even kill. As can other non-lethal means, such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, bean bags, or harsh words.

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

Animal_Mother wrote: »

I would imagine that it's hard to be the Hero of Tamriel while the main protagonist refuses to do anything.

The game starts out with unknown forces either murdering you or forcing you into slavery. Your choices are to accept this fate or to fight against it. Fighting against it, awakens you to the evil taking place throughout Tamriel; even as you complete quests as seen from the other sides of the conflict in Caldwell's Gold and Silver, you discover not everything in the game is black and white and even the side you choose is capable of atrocities against their primary foes.

I didn't want to become the Hero of Tamriel; it was forced upon me. If my character had accepted either death or slavery as an option, the game would've ended right after the opening scene. And if you accept this fate, you saying that this behavior is acceptable in the world. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

By my character taking an active stance against these evils, generally through killing or destroying them, Tamriel is a better place. There's less slavery, less violence, hell, I even brought together three warring sides together to face a powerful evil. Could I have done that, if I had stayed a soul-shriven or a slave?

Passive is not an option. Even in the real modern world, good life cannot happen without acting upon the lives of other life.

As @starkerealm pointed out, tasers can injure, maim or even kill. As can other non-lethal means, such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, bean bags, or harsh words.

Still standing is the operative word ... CHOICE. There's a reason things are identified as being an accident versus attempted. So the potential to kill is not the same as having to kill or wanting to kill, or needing to kill. The aforementioned tools/weapons were designed to take a target down without causing death. The fact that they can cause death does not change that intended fact, regardless of whose hands they're in.

starkerealm · August 2017

Animal_Mother wrote: »

As @starkerealm pointed out, tasers can injure, maim or even kill. As can other non-lethal means, such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, bean bags, or harsh words.

It's probably wroth remembering, the technical term for those is, "less than lethal," not, "non-lethal." This isn't a semantic difference. When you resort to violence, there's always a very real risk things will go too far. LTL weapons are designed to try to hedge that bet. Try to minimize the risks as much as possible. But, if you're at a place where you're pulling a weapon on someone, you're stepping into a realm where there's a very real possibility that someone is going to die.

This gets back to the morality discussion. I mean, ESO would probably be a richer game if we had more options to end quests though discussion, and talking people around, rather than just, "well, now I've got to wax the boss." Making those satisfying conclusions that feel plausible isn't an easy mark to hit, though. Especially with some of the situations we're left with.

Violence should always be a tool of last resort. Video games and RPGs can jump ahead of the curve there and say, "yeah, this is your only option," but sometimes it is the only real option.

starkerealm · August 2017

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

TheMaster wrote: »

The problem with this is that pacifists don't fight. They become doctors. Saying you're only going to "incapacitate" a group of armed enemies that are trying to kill you is complete nonsense. This isn't Batman and you're not a comic book character. And this is one of few things that are not left up to player decision or interpretation. Our characters are killers and have no problem killing. Why they have no problem killing is up to the player to decide.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, new daily missions where you act as a vigilante and use tools provided by the mission to arrest weakened enemies as a requirement from the quest provider. But revolving your entire gameplay experience around such a concept doesn't work for these games.

That's ridiculous. That's like you implying that a healer can't heal without killing. Have you ever heard of a taser? What do you think they do?

Cause cardiac arrest and kill the victim in a sizable portion of cases. But, hey, at least it gives you the capacity to inflict excruciating pain on the unsuspecting, because that's a good thing, right?

We're not talking about their ability to kill. We're talking about the intended purpose of it not killing. Heck, swords don't have to be used for killing either.

Okay, I'm going to stop you there. I honestly didn't even read the rest. As I just said in an earlier post, when you resort to violence, you're already deciding that death is an acceptable possible outcome. You may think you have the ability to control the variables, and the flow of combat, but that's not really true. At least not in any realistic sense. You can, as I said, try to mitigate the risks as much as possible. Which is the point of the tazer. But, you can't decide, "yeah, I'm going to shoot to wound." That kind of fine control over factors beyond you isn't a realistic option.

Tyrobag · August 2017

Sounds like Varen to me, sits around in his cave never doing anything, and needs you to kill stuff for him because he refuses to get his own hands dirty. I don't think anybody would find this passive class (we can call it "The Vegetable") remotely interesting to play, not to mention the fact that they would never be allowed in any group content, and be unable to complete 90% of the game's solo content.

Oakmontowls_ESO · August 2017

starkerealm wrote: »

Oakmontowls_ESO wrote: »

As multiple people have adjust stated, there is no true good and evil in the elder scrolls lore. Even alduin from skyrim isn't truly bad but is just a universe restart button. Or the daedra are simply beings of change. In short the whole elderscrolls lore seems to be a social commentary on nothing being truly black and white.
As another example, lorkan is simultaneously the bad guy in the eyes of mer and the good guy in the eyes of men.

That's not entirely true. There is good and evil in TES, but, there's no external confirmation provided. No one steps in and confirms what you already know. You're left to evaluate the morality of your actions on your own.

You can do truly evil things in TES, but no authoritative voice will step in and say, "okay, you get a red team point for that."

By the same measure, there are cosmic forces in TES that do evil things. There are cosmic forces that do good. These don't always align, and even individual beings can switch between being a catalyst for good, and being monstrous depending on what's happening. It's not really moral relativity so much as their motives are complex.

Within that context, it's easy to abdicate and say, "well, stuff is morally gray," but that's not really true. The morality involved can be assessed based on the actions taken. It's just that no one will come in, tap you on the shoulder, and remind you that you just did an evil thing.

Well the very concept of morality is subjective but even Molag bal is simply doing what is in his nature. Would you fault a lion for killing a zebra or a snake from killing a bird. They do not see themselves as evil, only doing what they are supposed to do which is cause change.

MythicEmperor · August 2017

The game already pushes an agenda of today's definition of the subjective term "good." If you've ever read any quest dialogue responses, then it would become apparent that there is very rarely an "evil" option.

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

starkerealm wrote: »

Animal_Mother wrote: »

As @starkerealm pointed out, tasers can injure, maim or even kill. As can other non-lethal means, such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, bean bags, or harsh words.

It's probably wroth remembering, the technical term for those is, "less than lethal," not, "non-lethal." This isn't a semantic difference. When you resort to violence, there's always a very real risk things will go too far. LTL weapons are designed to try to hedge that bet. Try to minimize the risks as much as possible. But, if you're at a place where you're pulling a weapon on someone, you're stepping into a realm where there's a very real possibility that someone is going to die.

This gets back to the morality discussion. I mean, ESO would probably be a richer game if we had more options to end quests though discussion, and talking people around, rather than just, "well, now I've got to wax the boss." Making those satisfying conclusions that feel plausible isn't an easy mark to hit, though. Especially with some of the situations we're left with.

Violence should always be a tool of last resort. Video games and RPGs can jump ahead of the curve there and say, "yeah, this is your only option," but sometimes it is the only real option.

I can agree with that, and it makes sense. It still would be nice to have a more clear definitive difference set in place for players looking to play in such a way.

AhPook_Is_Here · August 2017

<--- Vash the Stampede.

I don't know if you can say killing is objectively evil. You can kill for survival, for food, for love or for democratic capitalism, all are valid reasons to kill. Killing is only evil if you do it for fun, for an ideology other than democratic capitalism, for a religion other than ones culturally intertwined to nations directly allied with democratic capitalism, or for hate. If you kill with love, you kill lovingly.

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

Tyrobag wrote: »

Sounds like Varen to me, sits around in his cave never doing anything, and needs you to kill stuff for him because he refuses to get his own hands dirty. I don't think anybody would find this passive class (we can call it "The Vegetable") remotely interesting to play, not to mention the fact that they would never be allowed in any group content, and be unable to complete 90% of the game's solo content.

Well that's obvious, because the game wasn't designed to make such a way of playing interesting; let alone successful. So that's a moot point. Your very mindset behind your comment is biased, and therefore not credible unless you've already truly tried it.

idk · August 2017

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

With all I've said, I must however point out that darkness and creepiness and all this stuff are and always will be a part of medieval fantasy. It's a genre thing.

I can agree with you there ... I'm just wondering if it has to be? Innovation has grown stale all for the sake of familiarity. Creation isn't suppose to be the brother to stagnation. It's what leads to those days we as players just stare at our stockpile of games and still wonder what we should play, because we're really bored, always looking for something fresh to give us that next fix. Not to digress, but you're right evil does permeate throughout this genre, and maybe it's time to change something and make being good cool.

You has nothing to do with creativity. The story line would be the same. We would still be working to vanquish evil from Tamriel and Nirn.

Even if they add a class in a future expansion that takes some oath to preserve life they would still be required to do the same quests under the same exact parameters as every other class so there is absolutely zero difference in the end. Zos would not waste time reworking almost every quest in the base game. No MMO in their right mind would undertake such a massive change. Just not worth the time.

Further, such a class would be restricted to one solitary role in group content and that is as a healer. They would also be the worst class for competitive vDSA raids. It would be extremely short sighted to develop such a restrictive class for an MMO.

Zos gave us something fresh. A new class, BGs, a new trial and zone to play in and just this week 2 more dungeons.

AhPook_Is_Here · August 2017

MythicEmperor wrote: »

The game already pushes an agenda of today's definition of the subjective term "good." If you've ever read any quest dialogue responses, then it would become apparent that there is very rarely an "evil" option.

I'd agree with that, most of the choices are aligned towards justice vs revenge or justice for the majority vs justice for the minority. There really aren't any or many quests where you can just eat babies cuz they taste good.

SirGabenOfSteamia · August 2017

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Animal_Mother wrote: »

As @starkerealm pointed out, tasers can injure, maim or even kill. As can other non-lethal means, such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, bean bags, or harsh words.

It's probably wroth remembering, the technical term for those is, "less than lethal," not, "non-lethal." This isn't a semantic difference. When you resort to violence, there's always a very real risk things will go too far. LTL weapons are designed to try to hedge that bet. Try to minimize the risks as much as possible. But, if you're at a place where you're pulling a weapon on someone, you're stepping into a realm where there's a very real possibility that someone is going to die.

This gets back to the morality discussion. I mean, ESO would probably be a richer game if we had more options to end quests though discussion, and talking people around, rather than just, "well, now I've got to wax the boss." Making those satisfying conclusions that feel plausible isn't an easy mark to hit, though. Especially with some of the situations we're left with.

Violence should always be a tool of last resort. Video games and RPGs can jump ahead of the curve there and say, "yeah, this is your only option," but sometimes it is the only real option.

I can agree with that, and it makes sense. It still would be nice to have a more clear definitive difference set in place for players looking to play in such a way.

You know, you can always play Animal Crossing if you don't want to be killing things. That way you wouldn't need to be on here complaining about a universe who's entire lore has been based upon conflicts between good and evil.

Despite what you think, your character having non-lethal options won't change Molag Bal from r***ing innocent virgins and slaughtering those who don't submit. One class being able to save the lives of all those murderers and Daedra worshippers won't undo events in the game and make the planemeld disappear.

Non-lethal won't turn back time. It won't unsink Yokuda, it won't undo the disappearance of the Dwarves, it won't unfight the dragons and save humanity from enslavement. All it will do is let all those bad people who are destroying Tamriel have a chance to escape from whatever prison they're placed in after being knocked unconscious and wreak havoc on the world once again.

Why oh why are you suggesting this?

Ethromelb14_ESO · August 2017

SirGabenOfSteamia wrote: »

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

Can we morph in to Aedra (despite them sometimes blurring the line)? Maybe something divine in nature that hates evil? Or something else that doesn't involve death, the underworld, or creepiness? Make us look like something celestial, and angel-like for a change, Zen.

Give us abilities named something like: Incorruptible, Begone, Preservation, I Swear, Chant of the Oath, I'd rather die. And this class would be immune to being turned by anything. Yet these games fool our children in to believing that evil is the most powerful force on earth; and that's a lie.

The Fighter's Guild and Mages' Guilds are dedicated to fighting Daedra and ending the planemeld. They were founded for that sole reason. By joining either your character is pretty much devoting their selves to the same cause.

Aedra are like gods. To be able to morph into one would be insane. I'm unaware as to whether or not lesser Aedra are still classified as deities, but even if they are, to have an entire playable race with similarities to beings that had to literally escape from Mundus in order to preserve their power would be ridiculously lore-breaking.

This game is rated "M." If we're being honest, kids shouldn't even be playing it.

Regardless, ESO is a roleplaying game. You're meant to be whoever you want in it. Make an original character, you know. People are allowed to choose whichever alignment they want, whichever backstory they want. Make your own, who cares. To say that A GAME teaches kids that "evil is the most powerful thing on Earth" --- even though the game isn't even set on Earth--- is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

The entirety of the main plot is about banishing a Daedric Prince, which are pretty much supervillains, and his minions from Tamriel in order to stop the planemeld, which is the process of Molag Bal drawing the Mundus into his own realm and enslaving human and merkind. Where's the evil in that?

Even the Dark Brotherhood isn't inherently evil. The Dark Brotherhood tracks down and kills those who have wronged someone else in some way. And let it be said that one of those wrongs may have been murder or massacre, so where's the wrong in judgement? Don't we do that in real life? Have you ever heard of lawful execution?

Honestly, it's a game. Calm down.

The morph would be aesthetic just like everything else before it. Rated "M" or not, children still play the game, so your point? Should, could, would'a... "Regardless, ESO is a roleplaying game. You're meant to be whoever you want in it. Make an original character, you know. People are allowed to choose whichever alignment they want, whichever backstory they want." This is all a lie. You can't choose whatever alignment you want, nor can you be whoever you want to be.

"To say that A GAME teaches kids that "evil is the most powerful thing on Earth" --- even though the game isn't even set on Earth--- is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." Really? Then you may need to get out more. Have you ever heard of the word "Symbolism"? We all do it. Look up "Role Play" which is exactly what MMOs are meant for. It's a simulation or program disguised in fun that can condition a person in to being detached from whatever they would not normally be able to do. It is also used in psychotherapy, which last I checked takes place on earth. Come to think of it games are on earth too. Ever been to Cosplay? Or at least seen it? Have you noticed that adults are influenced by fantasy as well? But you don't believe children are?

The truth is you made the most ridiculous statement you ever heard.