Yes, I finished their questline.
As for my in-game morality compass, well, um, basically, at least when it comes to major questlines, I don´t give a shit about my char´s morality because the game kinda doesn´t either.
Having morality in these cases mostly means just refusing content, not approaching it in different ways.
That particular point in the Companions´ story called for a difficult speech check or maybe application of some kind of global recognition system like fame/infamy (which unfortunately isn´t present).
I joined the companions with a previous character but refused to go past the tipping point. If there had been a way to complete it all anyway then the choice really has no consequences. I'm not sure if there was some way to follow on to the one leader's wish or not because that character got swept up in other quest lines.
This was always a weakness in the earlier TES games. In Morrowind and Oblivion you could join all the factions and completely advance through all of them in spite of some of them being utterly opposed to others.
I joined the companions with a previous character but refused to go past the tipping point. If there had been a way to complete it all anyway then the choice really has no consequences.
If you´d played along, maybe you´d agree that, given how Companions´ questline develops, the scenario calls for an alternative solution, because quite shortly after that tipping point you´re told the whole Circle ritual thing is basically stupid.
It´s not as much a question of C&C as it is a question of multiple quest solutions.
And becoming
a werewolf
so that you could progress further isn´t a significant consequence anyway, the only drawback is loosing a well rested boni and, well, you can
There´s not and that´s why I´m questioning the whole thing. Maybe I´ve already forgotten some details, but I think it might actually make more sense to be given his quest as a "non-ritualized" character.
This was always a weakness in the earlier TES games. In Morrowind and Oblivion you could join all the factions and completely advance through all of them in spite of some of them being utterly opposed to others.
I agree, but that´s no excuse for Skyrim in my book .
But it´s not entirely true when it comes to Morrowind.
The three Great Houses were mutually exclusive.
The "advance through all of them in spite of some of them being utterly opposed to others" was really a flaw only in regards to Mages Guild vs. Telvanni, where a more direct conflict or a way to get them to cooperate were sorely missing (though there was a sorta easter-eggy quest "kill Telvanni councilors" issued by the arch mage).
Fighters vs. thieves was without issues, iirc. The conflict stemmed from Camonna Tong vs. Thieves and one of the ways to become a master of Fighters Guild was to purge it from Camonna Tong´s influence, thus basically helping the thieves. Taking the Camonna Tong´s side could potentially make advancement in Thieves Guild impossible as it should.
There were some other minor conflicts present and a temporary main quest/Temple faction conflict.
The guilds/houses had skill requirements. Certainly not steep (80, 30, 30 in favored skills was usually enough to get on top) and really hard to achieve, but at least your character had to be good at something relevant.
All I needed to become an arch mage in Skyrim, relevant character development-wise, was a Fear spell.
Also, Morrowind had an inter-faction disposition system in place. For example, joining the Mages Guild made Telvanni members really dislike you.
It may have not been much, but it certainly hasn´t been improved upon since.
I have tried, and mostly succeeded. I turned down several quests which were simply evil…although I have no compunction about attacking anyone who attacks me…fry baby! "What's wrong, did someone steal your sweet roll?" I do feel that many quests could have had a consistent 'good' resolution (or at least 'lesser or evils') but that was simply not a choice. I certainly don't expect a good/neutral/evil choice, but if you have judged the morality of some Jarl to be 'good', and you find out something 'perfidious' happening under his nose, which he should want to know about and stop, why the hell can't you report it to him? I's almost like many quests were designed in a vacuum.
I find this topic interesting, but really strange. I don't think it's difficult to play as good in these games. Like others have said, you can simply ignore quests where evil or questionable behavior takes place. Just because you talk to someone and you get a message to do something nasty in your quest log doesn't mean you have to do it. And if you later find out something you did had bad consequences, well, you still did what you thought was right. Most of the time fighting takes place in self defense, as most enemies attack on sight.
About the Companions:
The werewolf thing isn't evil either. You can control when you change and you don't ever have to hurt or kill anyone. Hell, you don't even need to ever turn in the first place. Or you could turn in the wilderness and hunt trolls or wild animals.
I find this topic interesting, but really strange. I don't think it's difficult to play as good in these games. Like others have said, you can simply ignore quests where evil or questionable behavior takes place. Just because you talk to someone and you get a message to do something nasty in your quest log doesn't mean you have to do it. And if you later find out something you did had bad consequences, well, you still did what you thought was right. Most of the time fighting takes place in self defense, as most enemies attack on sight.
This, including the spoiler. I really enjoyed the companions quest line - so far it is my favorite in the game (although I still have a long ways to go as I am only 70 hours in at this point and just started my third city last night at level 27).
When I first discovered what was happening I was like … hmm not sure about this. But I continued along. When I got to the tipping (turning?) point I had to make a choice.
I could stop progressing the quest line by refusing the offer to become a werewolf. It would mean the end of the quest line, but thats the CONSEQUENCE of my decision right there. I don't have to finish the quest line to complete the game. Only if I want to become part of the inner circle and move forward in the "guild". That is the price you have to pay to do so.
In the end I decided it would be worth converting to a werewolf, as a good player, in the hopes that A) I could control the change and stay good and B) hope that by joining the inner circle I could either find a cure or find a way to keep the WW's under control (good). Since many of the companions seemed decent enough I assumed it was possible to remain good.
I discovered there wasn't any requirement to make me evil. Killing and feeding on others could bring me more power but overall I was not required to become evil. Then, sure enough, I was able to find a way to do the cure. In the end the entire quest line was very satsifying.
I liked the Werewolf ability actually. In the end I cured myself because of its connection with Hircine and the afterlife. Like the old leader I did not want to spend eternity in a hunting pack.
In regards to the whole debate on joining all factions, guilds, etc. I agree I find this odd but I tend to just shrug my shoulders and use my own self-control to do what I think makes sense.
If I become the arch-mage I will not try to also become head of the fighters guild. Although I suppose an arguement could be made that a battlemage might have some legimate background for it and vice-versa. Same for the theives guild since the line between a "fighter" and a "swashbuckling theif" is a fine one.
While I lack Maylanders ability to stricly split up content for multiple games I do prefer to limit quests and areas of content when playing. I may, or may not, play again but if I do I can then experience it that way.
My core play style is one where I play my character completely around who I envision them to be. Missing content, quests, loot, etc … doesn't bother me. What matters is that I get to do the story, play my character as I want to play them within the rules of the world, and enjoy the journey as well as the destination.
On a related note is the dark brotherhood (major spoiler):
As a good ranger I would like nothing more to destroy them. But to do so means getting involved with them in the first place. You can impersonate one and get the quest to then destroy them. The issue is do you, as a good character, even go that far in (its only one quest and more an impersonation after all)? I have to admit I cheated here a little as I saw someone make a post about destroying them so with that fore-knowledge I rationalized I would infiltrate them a little to see if I could find a way to destroy them.
Turning down a side quest has nothing to do with C&C or roleplaying. Turning down a side quest has been included in every single RPG with side quests since side quests were invented! That's the whole point of a side quest - they're on the side! They're not mandatory, you can skip them. Even hack'n slash games have side quests. MMOs have side quests. GTA has side quests. There's hardly a game out there without side quests these days.
C&C/roleplaying means there's an alternate path, a way to be a good guy during quests that are initially evil and vice versa, for example by bringing the criminals to justice instead of joining them.
Proper roleplaying would definitely not involve skipping side quests. Are you telling me a Paladin type character would hear Brynjolf talk about the Thieves Guild without interfering? Just walking away? Or the Companions talking about werewolves? Apathy is hardly the path of a good guy. A good guy would get involved, protect the innocent and save the day. That's what they do.
Apathy is something for neutral or evil characters, not good characters.
Edit: Skyrim actually does have C&C though, unlike Oblivion, but it's definitely an area they can still improve.
Turning down a side quest has nothing to do with C&C or roleplaying. Turning down a side quest has been included in every single RPG with side quests since side quests were invented! That's the whole point of a side quest - they're on the side! They're not mandatory, you can skip them. Even hack'n slash games have side quests. MMOs have side quests. GTA has side quests. There's hardly a game out there without side quests these days.
C&C/roleplaying means there's an alternate path, a way to be a good guy during quests that are initially evil and vice versa, for example by bringing the criminals to justice instead of joining them.
Proper roleplaying would definitely not involve skipping side quests. Are you telling me a Paladin type character would hear Brynjolf talk about the Thieves Guild without interfering? Just walking away? Or the Companions talking about werewolves? Apathy is hardly the path of a good guy. A good guy would get involved, protect the innocent and save the day. That's what they do.
Well said. I actually had lined up a post where I used the bolded parts almost word for word, but I got an external interrupt and for some reason forgot to post it afterwards .
Yep and I´m glad they´re at least trying and the concept isn´t entirely alien for them . A pity they didn´t put more thought/resources into it, because personally I´ve found even the existing cases of C&C in the game mostly unsatisfying.
Maybe next time.
One could argue that the choice and consequence is in your own roleplay. If you choose to do a certain quest, let's say find the shrine of Boethiah after reading the book dropped by the mad cultist; then your consequence is going to be getting involved with some nasty, evil stuff. That to me is the ultimate choice and consequence. You have the freedom to pursue those events, or the freedom to ignore them.
If you are roleplaying a good guy, you would ignore the book and continue doing only good deeds.
If you are an evil character, killing another man in cold blood would interest you and you would follow through with finding the shrine.
And this also allows for a lot of blurred lines and grey area. Some good characters may be tempted by the lure of a Daedric prince. Some evil characters may not feel like wasting their time with one. Again, each character gets a nice, meaty choice of whether or not to follow through with a certain quest. And these types of choices are made all throughout the game.
You can even tell quest givers you aren't interested in their work, after they have explained the quest to you. I talked to the Jarl of Dawnstar and asked for work, and he wanted me to slay some random giant. I don't think it's right to slay giants for no reason other than sport, so I declined the quest. He muttered something angry in response, saying don't bother him unless it's important, and off I went. My choice was not to hunt giants for sport, and my consequence was not getting the gold payment or reward for doing it had I chose to. You're constantly making decisions like that in this game.
I don't see how that isn't great C&C. It's just designed differently than say a Bioware game, but it's still very much there.
The difference is that in one case (Obsidian, forget Bioware), making a choice is forced on you by a necessity in the script/story etc, whereas in Skyrim making a choice is avoidable.
You suck at roleplaying then .
A good guy would investigate it and tried to contain the cult somewhat.
Slight spoilers:
In the case of Boethiah´s quest, you can attempt to do this, btw, but your only option is to kill the cultists outright and then you just re-receive the quest, thus a "good path" leads nowhere, since you don´t get an option to deal with Boethiah´s champion this way.
Have you done the house of horrors quest? Good luck completing it as a "good" guy (even though starting it as a good guy is completely viable).
How about Mephala quest? Afair, there´s not even an option to inform the jarl about the situation!
Similarly, if you want to deal with Dark Brotherhood the *other* way, first you have to finish a quest where a "good" option is not available.
Etc.
An example of a somewhat well done daedric quest in this regard is the Azura one in my opinion.
Hahaha, nice, meaty choice? Hell not!
There´s nothing meaty in either doing a quest one way or refusing/ignoring it.
Nice, meaty choice is when you´re allowed to complete quests in different ways according to your character´s morals or skills and it´s even meatier when a game reacts to it.
Outright closing content/options is only meaty when it is due to what player had done previously (quest consequences, fame/infamy, etc.), or due to lacking skill/attribute requirements (this way character development gets infused with C&C which go beyond the "how do I kill stuff" ones).
Also, regardless of C&C discussion, side quest(line)s somewhat geared towards "questionable" characters are generally more fleshed out than the others, similarly as was in Oblivion´s case.
Have fun doing all those mundane fedexs and refusing most of the interesting content with your good guy. Of course, replays, but personally I prefer when I get a similarly meaty experience regardless of how I´m roleplaying my character.
Every game with side quests contains these.
(Though I think that when it comes to the really minor/random stuff, like killing a giant or not, there´s not really a need for further nuancing besides refuse/accept.)
Check out, for example, Mask of the Betrayer to see some nice, meaty choices (and consequences) in action and forget Bioware/Bethesda for a moment .
But as was already mentioned, Skyrim does contain some actual C&C, even though the most significant one is delivered via poor questlines, so kudos for those, at least.
The problem I see here is that a game can never give every option. Nor does role playing have to be limited to dialgoue choices given by the developers. I would suggest that a good role player is one who can fill in things themselves and that one that "sucks" is one who can only role play if the developer explicitly lets them do it
Sometimes your only option is to not do a quest or not go further. Ideally it is nice to have more choices but I have played tons of games where A) The choice the developer provided with a moral result was NOT the result I would have chosen; B) Even with choices they were not the ones I wanted.
So turning down a quest has a lot to do with roleplaying; its just another aspect of it. Ones actions don't always have to be validated in a game by the writers/designers. Having alternative paths is just a way to validate the characters actions. Of course thats great, and I fully like to see that. However I would never limit my role playing to just that aspect of a game.
Remember this is a game with design limits. Just because my paladin turns down a quest and walks away does not mean he is apathetic. It just means the GAME didn't allow me to make the choice I wanted so I have to find my own way of making that choice. There are any number of ways to rationalize why the Paladin walked away behind the scenes. Not to mention even a good guy sometimes has to accept they can't do everything and that dieing a useless death … is well useless. Maybe they walk away from the WW conversation to plan another way to take them down. if the game provides that option (say join the silver hand) then hooray! If not … well then you have to make up your own story on your own.
Anyhow Fluent covered a lot of my own feeling. I like it when a game cna accomdate my choices by validating them through the writing and options but I would never limit myself to just that as a form of role playing like some people seem to want to do.
If you enjoy using Skyrim as a platform for "in-head roleplaying", more power to you, I certainly do it myself at times (like the time I used a giant as a sparring partner to gain 15 points in blocking fast and left him unharmed afterwards, even though these have pretty good loot), but this has nothing to do with roleplay mechanics in-game. I could "roleplay" chess in my head this way, but that wouldn´t make chess a roleplaying game.
Mechanics, man, mechanics .
And of course options can´t be unlimited, it´s a matter of sensible design.
I´m glad Bethesda infused Skyrim with some of this stuff, but they sorta stopped half-way through and left some of the quests screaming for some further nuancing.
Elastic quest design is not mutually exclusive with open world games and Bethesda is not exactly a resourceless studio.
I dunno, I just feel like the role-playing aspect of Skyrim is great. I'm having a lot of fun role-playing in this game. I really feel like my character is an extension of myself. My character doesn't steal and doesn't do much shady stuff, yet I'm still having a blast. It is tempting to do the questionable content though, just to see how it plays out, but maybe on another playthrough I'll get to that content. Or I might even have a change of heart hours down the road, and start to pursue some of that stuff. For now though, it's just fun playing as I see fit.
Would it be better with more choices during quests? Probably. Do I miss having those types of options? Not at all. I think the game is perfect the way it is. I think we can all come up with things that would be awesome to see in a video game. I'd love if you could try and reason with every enemy you encounter, and not have to resort to violence. It's not a very realistic approach though, in terms of ever seeing that in a TES game.
I have to agree with DeepO. Let me give an example: "Innocence lost" quest. How much effort would it take to give a non lethal solution to this quest? Bethesa did have come up with more than one solution to "The Blessing of Nature". So, like DeepO have said: "they sorta stopped half-way through"…
Yep, I'm board with that. Too many quests require you to kill the baddie. Why don't they have the option for the baddie to surrender and give you some other boon to let them leave and disperse. Many other modern games, like NWN 2 gave you these options almost globally. It's this mean-spiritness of Elder Scroll games that is keeping me from going back to them.
.
