I can't justify being evil and be the Dragonborn

[Newaryon]

I'm on my first character and this is my first Bethesda game. I've played in MMORPGs a lot, like Everquest and Warcraft. Wrestling with some of these same issues.

 

I started as an Imperial and thought of her as a kind of merchant-fighter type. That part is working out well. She thinks of herself as honest but has a real greedy streak. She tries not to kill, or steal from honest fellow citizens, but thieves and disgusting Falmer are fair game. She has sided with the Imperials in the War but feels guilty about killing Stormcloaks, who she sees as misguided. She harries the Thalmor with relish as she has decided they are the "true" enemy. She just finished wiping out a Forsworn Redoubt and is wracked with guilt over all the dead bodies she left... again, misguided fools. She is presently wrestling with the question of whether to join the thieves guild in order to infiltrate it, or whether any compromise would be a mistake.

 

It kind of boggles me the number of evil quests for powerful artifacts I have run across, without corresponding good ones. I have half a dozen Daedric quests in my quest log which I don't want to do as my character doesn't want to spread evil in the world. I've been searching the Temples for equivelent quests and power from the Aedra and I just don't see them. Not that I want to transform into a Paladin type, but I'm getting the idea that, as a Dragonborn, my moral choices may well transform the world. If I have to ally with Daedra in order to save the world, I may become a kind of demon myself, just as I see the possibility to act as a kind of avatar of Talos.

 

So my character is scouring the world for good allies and ways to avoid becoming a Daedric pawn. So far the Blades seem like the only allies with a clue, and they are pretty much of neutral alignment.

[Kazakovich]

Well, one thing to remember is that Daedra aren't neccesarily "evil" in the traditional sense. Some Daedra can be considered evil (Like Dagon and Molag Bal, for instance), but many of them are truly neutral creatures. Sure, the followers of the Eight Divines claim they are all evil, but that's little wonder, considering they're religious competition. When it comes to dealing with Daedra, I think it depends on which Daedric prince it is. I can totally see a "good" character working for Meridia or Azura, for instance.

Of course, a character may not be aware of that, and simply consider all Daedra evil by definition. I'm sure the Oblivion Crisis didn't exactly help Daedric public relations very much.

 

Speaking of good Daedric followers, one character I've got going is a paladin-like Khajiit, who got this odd sun-cult where he attempts to fight for Meridia, as an avatar of the sun. So rather than simply killing the undead as an obstacle, he imagines he's liberating them, for instance. It's quite interesting, playing a Daedric Paladin.

[rabidNode]

I actually understand your dilemma. Before I go any further I will say that most single player rpgs nowadays severely lack any insight into this issue and in truth evil is actually just a given. The only place you are going to find that kind of insight and development is perhaps in mods. Most of the actual content involved in Skyrim is shady and could be construed as evil.

A truly good character would not do anything for the dark brotherhood beside destroy its leader and would not join the thieves guild and honestly would not get mixed up with unearthing magicks that were buried for a reason.

You are looking for a complexity that is not paid much mind in crpgs except out of the mainstream ones.

 

However to justify any behavior really only takes imagination. So cold blooded murder could be justified by messages in your head revealing that those people you are killing are in fact going to do terrible evil in the future so its just a small evil to deal with a larger one. Perhaps the hits you are doing are on daedric lords embodied in the flesh.

[taerie]

Skyrim rather badly fails in my personal definition of RPG. I found it impossible to do way too much of the game and roleplay a character that I would enjoy playing at all. I have no interest in joining a group of two-bit hoods like the thieves guild or being a assassin for hire.

To avoid just quitting and wasting the money I paid for the game I ended up amusing myself by opening the console often to make the execrable essential status of evil characters go away and then giving them what they deserve.

As a result, I have missed a lot of the game content but had an okay time anyway making Riften a good place to live (even if the NPCs are not equipped to recognize that the Thieves guild and Maven are gone. I won't be bringing a sacrifice to whats her face or killing Parth either)

If only Skyrim had lived up to it's claim of being a roleplaying game and given you viable alternatives to outright evil deeds such as they did with Dark Brotherhood then I would not have had to resort to the console commands just to enjoy the game. Very disappointing.. and I am very relieved to see that I am not the only one who feels that way. Frankly, anyone who has fun with these sorts of quests are a bit scary in my opinion.

[Brandy1123]

For me, I like to play the moral dillema out. There are several big ones you have to make in the course of adventuring and ultimately facing your nemesis. If you think in game environment terms, its easy for me. You don't know what the Devines or Daedric Princes have in store. Sheogorath gives the best interaction and understanding for this. You are a play thing to them. They take an interest in your very being. They move you around Skyrim as a pawn on a chessboard. Each act you do, hones your skills and that in turn causes outward comments or reactions from the people you encounter. Even at the start, if you follow the Imperial or Stormcloak soldier from Helgen to the 3 stones, they comment on which stone you chose. Listen to the Grey Beard dialog. They tell you about a lot of what will and does happen. If you take it all in, your soul purpose is to be the catalyst for end times. Without spoiling the game any further, I wont go into any more details about game events.

 

My whole point here is, I believe the Devines/Princes offer these factions to you to join by directing or influencing your path. They (the Devines) are lazy and amuzed by our insignificance. Yet, they still find some enjoyment in your struggles. From their point of view, Why not encourage our little pawn to do things like the Dark Brotherhood. You may gain skills to prevent "us" from having to recreate the whole world thing all over again. AND you KNOW what a pain in the arse that would be. Lets see what happens to this generations little hero.

 

I see it as why I run different type of characters. The Devines are guiding this toon a different direction for maybe an alternate universe comparison. Who knows :tongue:

 

I hope that helps.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Brandy_123

[Crossaber]

Skyrim rather badly fails in my personal definition of RPG. I found it impossible to do way too much of the game and roleplay a character that I would enjoy playing at all. I have no interest in joining a group of two-bit hoods like the thieves guild or being a assassin for hire.

To avoid just quitting and wasting the money I paid for the game I ended up amusing myself by opening the console often to make the execrable essential status of evil characters go away and then giving them what they deserve.

As a result, I have missed a lot of the game content but had an okay time anyway making Riften a good place to live (even if the NPCs are not equipped to recognize that the Thieves guild and Maven are gone. I won't be bringing a sacrifice to whats her face or killing Parth either)

If only Skyrim had lived up to it's claim of being a roleplaying game and given you viable alternatives to outright evil deeds such as they did with Dark Brotherhood then I would not have had to resort to the console commands just to enjoy the game. Very disappointing.. and I am very relieved to see that I am not the only one who feels that way. Frankly, anyone who has fun with these sorts of quests are a bit scary in my opinion.

 

Yea, I felt the same, but my suggestion is, you can make different characters to do different quests.

 

My main well represents myself and so, i decided to let go most daedra quests, destroy darkbrotherhood and stay away from thief guild. But as i am role playing, i made other characters and now just finished all thief guild quests and made guild master. Well the quests and story is great and enjoyable. So i believe my 3rd character will go more evil and play through dark brotherhood as well...

 

But yes, i am sure Skyrim is not doing a great job on moral decisions. I really hope there are always 2 sides of the coin on each factions or quest line so to define him/herself by the solution chosen.

[Glhadiator]

Just because we're playing a game doesn't mean that our real world morals go away. A few posters in this thread mentioned the 'anti-hero'. For the the most part I agree, imho, that the character Bethesda meant to portray in Skyrim is the anti-hero type. That being said...

 

In human society we allow our heroes, warriors or whatever you want to label them to shed the chains of morality to serve the common good. Even religious factions use soldiers to 'serve' their deity!

 

I like that there isn't a strict moral quest line, it's a role playing game! Play your character as you see her. If it bothers you to kill people as a Dragonborn...then don't do it. I think it's cool that you have created a character history. Go one step further and develop a philosophy for her as well. And play the game based on that philosophy.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is "Don't expect the game to make moral decisions for you. In fact you should be happy it doesn't." I currently have plans to play through the game many times. Each play-thru will be vastly different. From a sword swinging killer to a cabbage picking farmer.

 

Because I can...

[MrTastix]

You'll get plotholes like that.

 

Honestly though, the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim really is about killing for the sake of killing. Hell, the Dark Brotherhood in general is killing for the sake of killing. They don't have to kill the people they're contracted to kill, they do it to make money (aka: hitmen) and because they're told to by the Night Mother, who is then told by her god (more or less).

 

Realise that in most RPGs where you can be "good" or "evil", the only difference between being evil is that you're saving the world whilst doing the some wanton killing on the side. You don't get to "control" or "end" the world, generally speaking, you just get the satisfaction of knowing that hundreds of innocents were slaughtered by your hand. Dialogue options don't change that, either.

[johndenver26]

TimF has a good point here. Odin and his ilk wanted you to die with a weapon in your hand, not on your way to help the homeless or to put more in the bird feeder. Valid point. And Skyrim tries - I think - to follow that same sense of old-world, Norse honor and "good." Good, in the Skyrim sense, is more akin to powerful than to just. More akin to influential than to conscientious. At least, I think this was the intent.

 

If the writers really wanted to convey that sense of a dark, gritty world where "good" is defined by the amount of blood on your blade and the number of times you sharpened it, however, they failed. And failed miserably. Oddly enough, the reason they failed is simple: There are no consequences. None. Ever.

 

If Bethesda wanted to paint the picture of a dark, gritty world where good is defined by how much blood you've shed, how much loot you've taken, how many lives you cut short and how much power you hold, they needed consequences. Power comes with a price. The more you have, the more others want. The more loot you have, the more people try and steal it from you in such a world. The more land, the more raids upon it. The more fame, the more challengers. Bethesda summarily fails to afford you any consequences for your infamous brand of fame, instead choosing to simply heap rewards upon you in exchange for your rampant wickedness.

 

Worse still, however, they fail to allow for consequences of a Paladin-like Lawful/Good alliance. You never must tithe to the temples. You are never reminded to pay tribute to Akatosh or Talos at a Shrine. Never once are you forced to take debuffs or give up loot and wordly goods for your allegiance to the Aedra ( the Divines.) There are no limitations on how evil you can be, and no penance for being evil. Likewise, there is no reward, no temptation for true, near-objective goodness and piety.

 

In a world where people never hate you being evil, never revolt against your decadence and never challenge your authority it matters not how you got there. Because 'being there' in such a world means nothing. It is this lack of consequence Bethesda needs to transcend before they start advertising their games as Role Playing Games again.

 

This, a million times.

[MrTastix]

It is this lack of consequence Bethesda needs to transcend before they start advertising their games as Role Playing Games again.

 

Whilst I agree with the rest of your post, this part is debatable. So I'll debate it.

 

At it's core, a role-playing game is one where you play the role of a character in a fictional world. Functions such as dialogue options, punishments, "good and evil" choice-making systems, and even character customization are just extra components of the game.

 

Most RPGs these days really only have the character customization down. Just because they don't have the option to be good or evil or their dialogue options are only there to tell a story doesn't mean they're not role-playing games. Some people started calling these types of games (like Diablo or Skyrim) "Action RPGs" because, unlike the original Dungeons & Dragons based role-playing games, these were heavily based around combat and perhaps even a sense of "leveling up".

 

Skyrim is by far a traditional role-playing game, but that doesn't mean it's not an RPG altogether.