Spoiler Should Guilds be inherently Good / Evil ?

[feliciano182]

My Elven character.

That's a nice twist !

I think such an interpretation would mostly depend on wether one believes actions are "good" because they are inherently "good", or because they derive in "good" consequences.

Wielding Dawnbreaker could be considered inherently "good" for two reasons, you're wielding a holy blade, and you're killing Draugr, but if you're serving the will of a crazy Daedra (something fishy about that Meridia) then your actions might've been perfectly evil all along.

Interesting discussion !

A side contract nobody did the Black Sacrament for. (Before you even meet the Night Mother, you have to accept that contract to advance the story.) There's other debatable ones, like one of the captives in the Abandoned Shack, but I always took those as signs of being corrupted by Astrid. My question was about Official contracts.

Oh ! I misread that part.

To clarify and continue, would the previous killings before Titus Mede count as official ? I'd say they would, but I think you might digress.

I didn't say there was, but there's a Heirachy of Evil, compared to Necromancy, or opening rifts to Oblivion to try, and take over the world, that's pretty low on the list.

I think at that point it's pretty redundant, it's like saying "your tragedy is far more horrifying than mine".

That's how I see it, and nothing I said about him is untrue.

For starters, the ultimate contract is only symbolic of itself, you're killing the goddamn Emperor of Tamriel, it's the thrill of such a target which makes the quest enticing, not some strange rationalization.

As for what it's untrue, the WGC wasn't an arm-wrestling contest that The Emperor lost, it was signed for a reason, one that ended up saving half the continent's population, and which allowed the ruling military force to strengthen it's position against an inmensely powerful enemy, it's far more complicated than it being the matter of honor the stormcloak supporters would like to think so.

No hard feelings though.

The DBH isn't illegal, except for the persecution by the Penitius Occulatus. Emperors can, and do use them, as have other people of high official stature. As you pointed out, they are a part of a brutal, and morally ambiguous world. In some ways, they save lives, because taking out the important man behing the War can prevent them from sending armies into battle, killing thousands. An assassin is a weapon, as much a tool as the dagger he, or she wields. If you say murder is wrong, in all cases, then that's one thing. However, if you accept that it's sometimes necessary, then sometimes you need to pay a professional to make sure it gets done. As for killing for money, every soldier in history has done that.

That's incredibly well-put in regards to The Dark Brotherhood, I was almost certain their group was somehow considered illegal, maybe "inconvenient" is a better term.

Soldiers don't just kill for money though, and they are certainly not unbound by law and morality, I think that's quite the stretch if we're making comparisons.

 

[Psiberzerker]

Wielding Dawnbreaker could be considered inherently "good" for two reasons, you're wielding a holy blade, and you're killing Draugr, but if you're serving the will of a crazy Daedra (something fishy about that Meridia) then your actions might've been perfectly evil all along.

She was specifically taking her Herald of Meridia seriously, as a holy crusade against the Undead. (Destroyed every last Draugr, even joined all the Factions to access those crypts.) My point being, she was pretty much doing the exact same thing as the avowed charter of the VoS, only because she serves a Daedric Prince, she'd be vilified by them for it. this was just to illustrate my point, some Evil is uncontestable, but virtually all Good is personal, and often mutually exclusive. Whenever you become fanatical enough to consider Genocide justified, and collateral casualties unfortunate, but necessary, you may consider yourself good, but most other will be able to see how you've turned. How is that different from the Thalmor, or racist Nords, or any other Genocidal cause in either history? The Thalmor consider themselves just as Justified in their Inquisition, political manipulations, and Nihilistic plan to destroy the world so they can rejoin the Aether. Us humans are as beneath them as animals are beneath us, so as expendable. To me, that sound just as Black, and White as the Vigilants denouncing Meridia, and her followers as intrinsically evil while professing loyalty to the God of Mercy. I'd rate that as even more hypocritical than even the Blades, who never claimed to be so high,and mighty in the first place.

To clarify and continue, would the previous killings before Titus Mede count as official ? I'd say they would, but I think you might digress.

Only for the purposes of that one point, I was counting the Contracts given to the Listener by the Night Mother (With a sacrament) "Official."

 

[Moris]

Soldiers don't just kill for money though, and they are certainly not unbound by law and morality, I think that's quite the stretch if we're making comparisons.

I've met a couple of soldiers who got to experience very personally what "collateral damage" looks like. They were forced, as a matter of policy, to take actions that killed innocent people, children in fact. These men were haunted and deeply disturbed by these events for the rest of their lives.

Sure, there are some psychopaths out there (and surely Skryim is full of them, most notably the Dragonborn) who won't need to be motivated by a combination of fear, desire for self-preservation, honor, brotherhood, and/or commitment to and love of fatherland or ideal before they'll be able to kill anyone. But I expect that for just about everyone else, money is one of the last things that would drive them into battle.

Killing is difficult. Killing people you don't hate is harder. Killing innocent people, and doing so without feeling intolerable and personally damaging regret, requires a frightening level of psychopathology. I doubt many soldiers fit the bill.

 

[Psiberzerker]

I've met a couple of soldiers who got to experience very personally what "collateral damage" looks like. They were forced, as a matter of policy, to take actions that killed innocent people, children in fact. These men were haunted and deeply disturbed by these events for the rest of their lives.

Sure, there are some psychopaths out there (and surely Skryim is full of them, most notably the Dragonborn) who won't need to be motivated by a combination of fear, desire for self-preservation, honor, brotherhood, and/or commitment to and love of fatherland or ideal before they'll be able to kill anyone. But I expect that for just about everyone else, money is one of the last things that would drive them into battle.

Killing is difficult. Killing people you don't hate is harder. Killing innocent people, and doing so without feeling intolerable and personally damaging regret, requires a frightening level of psychopathology. I doubt many soldiers fit the bill.

I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of this, (Except the asside about the Dragonborn being Psychotic.) He, or she can be as psychotic as you're willing to play them. Sure, a lot of the people on these forums (not just his one, I've been active on many others) but those tend to reflect the style of the players more than the intent of the narrative. I don't even believe (Without any evidence for against this, so it's a matter of faith) that most Skyirm players are like this, but only the most vocal are attracted to places like this to brag about the insane damage they can get from their Daedric weapons, and OP builds of mass PWnage.

To me, the Dragonborn as written strikes me as a regular guy dragged into a insane adventure by Destiny. Mor a victim of events, and birth than a power mad maniac. He can be, quite easily, there's plenty of power there, but like so much else in these games, it's a choice.

 

[Moris]

No, Dragonborn is likely not psychotic. He/she is quite aware of what's going on and of the ramifications of his/her actions.

But is the Dragonborn capable of killing 15 bandits in a single cave? And then go home and sleep soundly, only to repeat the next day?

My Dragonborn has personally killed hundreds of people. I know it's a fantasy game, so we can't diagnose the character according to modern standards of pathology. But really, that's a LOT of people. How many humans in our history have done something similar? What do we usually think of the ones who have come closest to this tally?

 

[Seanu Reaves]

I think of the swedish sniper who killed over five hundred soviets during world war 2. Man was a war hero. You have to remember that in fantasy the conditions of living are similar but not the same as our world. They are blue and orange morality if you care to look at it. People change and since they are locked into a medieval period they have diferent views. So, orality is the worst thing to argue. After all if you think about it most of what the dragonborn does is fight for money. Parts of tthe main quest asside the Dragon born is the greatest mercenary of his age. He does things for a reward and likely wouldnt if there was no reward. So morality is moot when you are doing things for almost instant gradification. Would you do most of the quests if you got no reward assides from a thank you? I think that is why RP's are popular you can define morality of your actions while the game is limited in presentation. Ok now this phone rant is over...

 

[Moris]

I think of the swedish sniper who killed over five hundred soviets during world war 2. Man was a war hero. You have to remember that in fantasy the conditions of living are similar but not the same as our world. They are blue and orange morality if you care to look at it. People change and since they are locked into a medieval period they have diferent views. So, orality is the worst thing to argue. After all if you think about it most of what the dragonborn does is fight for money. Parts of tthe main quest asside the Dragon born is the greatest mercenary of his age. He does things for a reward and likely wouldnt if there was no reward. So morality is moot when you are doing things for almost instant gradification. Would you do most of the quests if you got no reward assides from a thank you? I think that is why RP's are popular you can define morality of your actions while the game is limited in presentation. Ok now this phone rant is over...

I had never heard of the Swedish sniper. He sounds like quite an extraordinary individual though.

One of my dragonborns does things merely for the 'thank you'. Money is utterly meaningless, after all, when you have 500,000+ septims. Likewise with armor and weapons, when you can most likely enchant them with with something much better.

 

[Seanu Reaves]

One of my dragonborns does things merely for the 'thank you'. Money is utterly meaningless, after all, when you have 500,000+ septims. Likewise with armor and weapons, when you can most likely enchant them with with something much better.

How did you get that much money? Half a million is quite the total. Musta chopped a ton of wood... And enchanting is expensive. so to get to the point were that is reasonable you need to invest so much... After getting rich he may be a good man who does it for no other reason than it is the right thing to do. You must remember just because he is a mercenary doesn't make him (or her sorry is I assume it is a guy) a bad person. But I shall not judge how you role play. maybe I'm to cynical for heroic fantasy... and the snipers name is Simo Häyhä

 

[JoeReese]

I generally just avoid quest lines that aren't me, but I do wish we had a "decline" button in the quest log, so I didn't have to have the quest hanging over my head forever.

 

[TomatoThief]

Ye Olde Alignment system (Good/Evil Chaotic/Lawful, Gary Gygax) is an over simplified generality. A real character is more rich, and complex than a simple "always attacks" or "Fights only evil."

As a strong advocate of the D&D alignment system, I am compelled to disagree. I'm sure you understand the system, but I enjoy writing about it, so humor me.

While the 3x3 chart uses the terms "Good" and "Evil", it does so against the concept of divinity. Evil represents selfishness (not to be confused with demonic or insidious intent), while Good represents selfless benevolence (not to be confused with holy zeal or pacifism). To this point, it is believable and not necessarily uncommon to have an avatar of good be classified as an "Evil" character, because he/she commits benevolent acts purely for the rewards, which may be material gain or fame and adoration. It is more difficult to imagine the opposite scenario, but still possible, such as a character who commits crimes against humanity because he believes it is best for humanity (imagine that a leader, though misguided, truly thought an entire race were demons bent on world destruction, thus he commits genocide for the betterment of the world... could this character be Good aligned, even though he is wrong?)

On the other axis is Lawful and Chaotic. Lawful indicates some orderly adherence to codes, regardless of what those codes are. This makes no reference to civil law, only personal codes. The five tenets of the Dark Brotherhood make the organization inherently Lawful, at least in Oblivion. The abandonment of the five tenets in favor of "anything goes" by Astrid is a move toward Chaos. Now Chaotic does not mean "at random", it means that a character's decisions are not restricted by any system of rules. The most orderly character can still be considered Chaotic if their actions are not influenced by external rules (thus they only seem to be Lawful).

I think the system is elegant and comprehensive. It may seem wrong to some of us because the key words like "Lawful" or "Evil" are charged with emotional definitions from our real lives that seem counter to their intent in a fantasy setting. I would entertain an argument for a 5x5 grid that accounts for leaning toward one extreme, rather than 3x3 which only allows for extremes and neutral, but that may be getting to be more complicated than necessary.

As a final fun note, I posit that unless a person is actively role-playing beyond the shallowest levels, every character they make is Chaotic/Evil in every game they play.

Thanks for giving me a reason to not work for 15 minutes.

-TT

 

[Psiberzerker]

As a strong advocate of the D&D alignment system, I am compelled to disagree. I'm sure you understand the system...

As a final fun note, I posit that unless a person is actively role-playing beyond the shallowest levels, every character they make is Chaotic/Evil in every game they play.

Well, my point is that there's more than 9 personalities. (10 counting Neutral/Neutral, and True Neutral.) I got the AD&D Boxed Set for X-mas in 1983, or the family did, Mom was the DM. I Skyrim, let's assume the "Typical" player is the Dragonborn, and primarily taking that Quest. If you stick to it, I'd rate you about Lawful (I just leave off Neutral for simplicity unless that is your alignment) because Alduin is Chaos, and you're fighting to stop Him. The standard attack everything on sight because it's fun is Chaotic, Evil doesn't enter into it unless you're doing it for sadistic shadenfreude, and teabaging the corpses to humiliate them. True Evil is the Necromancer,or Bloodknight in Daedric Armor, with weapons of "Please don't hit me with that," but they can be Chaotic (Berserker), Neutral (Evil for it's own sake, Chaos/order doesn't enter into it), or Lawful (Mostly Min/maxers, and using things like Illusion to assert control.)

I am a Role-player, so I don't just give them backgrounds, and aspirations, but fairly in-depth personality profiles. I originally studied Psychology to understand normal people (A baseline is something the Psychiatric community is sorely lacking) and now, I kind of Min/max with it. That's what makes me Lawful/Evil, I don't have access to Illusion, or Mind Control drugs, so I use words, and psychological conditioning to assert my dominance.

 

[Seanu Reaves]

I didnt realize neutral neutral and true nutral were different. Cause in the 9 alignment guidelinds true neutral is "nuetral for law or chaos" and "neutral on good and evil" sorry i just got confused

 

[Psiberzerker]

I didnt realize neutral neutral and true nutral were different. Cause in the 9 alignment guidelinds true neutral is "nuetral for law or chaos" and "neutral on good and evil" sorry i just got confused

That's smething they added in a later edition, (I think it might have been the Clerical Manual, but I forget.) Neutral/Neutral doesn't care, True Neutral seeks ballance, to the logical extreme, they'll join the fight on the Underdogs' side to even the odds, and might possibly switch if they gain too much of an advantage. N/N is Atheistic, while TN is Zen.

 

[Seanu Reaves]

Lolz sounds like two sides or interpretations of the same concept. but meh can't argue with that.