Perhaps this topic ties in with the justice system, but what do you think the role of alignment will be?

For example: A village is being plundered by bandits . . . . will their be 2 options? 1) Help the villagers become a hero 2) Help the bandits become a bad guy

As for justice system, yes there will be consequences for stealing, murdering and things of that sort, but will the decisions that you make with NPCs steer you to being generally good or generally evil?

One thing about TES, which needed improvement IMO, and which should be improved upon in ESO, is the choices allowed during interactions with NPCs.

Say you want to fashion your character in an evil Nightblade type way . . . why would you help some poor sod at an inn defend their farm against goblins? Wouldn't you say "Okay, give me your key (or alternatively just pick the lock) to the farmhouse I'll kill the gobs and come back and report when the jobs done." Then you go to the farm, kill the goblins and loot the house and go back to the farmer and say "Oh I killed the goblin, but not before they looted the house sorry!" Should there be choices like this?

I'm always against alignments. Especially if it's pure good and pure evil.

While i like Alignment systems in games, they really do not work very well in MMO's. SWTOR, for example, had a cool system, but it barely effected the story at all except for the mission's specific stories and the system had no lasting impact on your characters story.

I've always loved playing the good guy, but as above, it can be very hard to make it work in a meaningful way and not just have it lock you out of certain abilities. One game that did it quite well was Jade Empire. Loved that game.

While I would agree with this to a certain extent in single player games, can't see it working well in an MMO, nor do I want to see a system like that implemented in an MMO, I hated that system in SWTOR, as the question arises what is good? And what is evil? My opinion on good and evil may be different with the developers opinion of good and evil, I remember picking some choices in swtor that I felt was goos, but it gave dark side points, implying that is was an evil choice, so I doubt it would work significantly in an MMO.

My personal preference for good or evil though is evil, I always enjoy being the evil one in any RPG making decisions that benefit only me and not caring about the other characters.

As to whether quests should have multiple endings, possibly, I think they mentioned something like this with reference to their phasing and server technology, e.g. you can save a village under attack from werewolves, upon return the villagers cheer for you, or you can ignore them, I may be out of date with this information though, haven't heard very much significant detail about the questing system recently.

I'm strongly in favor of dynamic storylines that reflect player choice. And I'm strongly opposed to alignment systems. Alignment systems are a lackluster attempt to add meaningfulness to player choices. If anything, they wind up limiting player choice by excessively incentivizing a certain option ("I need to pick the Good/Light/Paragon/Low Chaos/Karmically Optimal choice here so I can max out my alignment!"). Player choices should be made meaningful by the plot and, in some cases, the gameplay. For example, if I decide to kill one person to save ten people, the consequence shouldn't be +/- 2 alignment points--the consequence should be that one person dies (and I can no longer talk to them, get quests from them, whatever...) and 10 people survive (who would have died if I had picked the other choice.) The direct consequence of my action can and should be meaningful in of itself. Fortunately, ZOS seems like they're doing a good job with this already (I love the example they give of choosing to wipe out the werewolves from a town, with the consequence that there will never again be werewolves when you visit that town). And, of course, this mentality is an integral part of what has always made Elder Scrolls games so special.

My characters are usually neutral but leaning towards good. They never do stuff that's outright bad but will often bend the law for the greater good if needed.

No. I don't need the game to tell me what kind of character I am. That's why I also like how they removed the class label from Skyrim. From what I've seen most people either call their build wrong or don't follow the build they've made. The latter tended to happen to me, I made a background, major (and minor) skills set up based on my background but roleplaying took me on another path, eventually me not being what my class says I am.

Yes, but not as black or white as ending being "good" or "bad". We should simply be able to take a different way for solving some quest and the quest should be failable.

Though I think most of this, including the questions fit a single player game much more than mmo.

"Should TESO have some sort of alignment system tied in with Justice System?"

I am not against this because it makes things "a bit more complicated" as you so condescendingly put, but because the only time I saw this in action in an MMO was in Dungeons & Dragons Online, and there it was an unnecessary choice that could put your character in a lot of PvE trouble for no reason.

I'm sure every MMO out there would've loved to add different endings to quests. But there's a fundamental problem; quests that you, the player do, will ultimately influence the story as it progresses through content patches and expansions.

For that, everybody has to be on the, more or less, same page.

Elder Scrolls way, countless shades of gray, decisions which force you good guys to choose lesser evil. Thats the way Elder Scrolls are done. Good and Evil may vary based on which side of conflict you stand

I like alternate endings, but I hate when what I THOUGHT was going to happen DOESN'T happen. A "twist" if you will. While it makes for an interesting story and it is perfectly reasonable that my character would not know what would happen, it still FEELS like I was used.

Like, you rescue some poor guy who's barely alive and mend him up... then find out that he was a murderer who had barely escaped the righteous anger of the townfolk. No way your character could have known (assuming the ailing guy properly played up the honest, goody-goody victim and did not, like, slyly glance around furtively or give some other clues).

I ran into a situation just the last day or so, playing Star Trek Online (just killing time, ESO, honest!)... my character was facing a defeated foe who had, admittedly, done horrible horrible things.... and without any decision on my part, my character shot this defenseless foe and killed him. Now, would I have chosen to have my character do that? Maybe. But I'd have liked to have had the choice.

Ironically, in other Star Trek Online missions, there ARE such choices. I was "sneaking" through this Federation base and trying to avoid detection and there was an NPC ahead that was target-able, so I could have attacked, but I did not. The NPC then accosted me and I managed to bluff my way out through dialog options and did not have to fight at all. I LOVED that that was an option.

As for "karma", good/bad choices... not sure I want the game telling me how "evil" I am, but I can certainly appreciate and accept a "bounty" system, where if I STEAL something or kill an innocent / guard, I get a bounty on my head. That's not some arbitrary moral judgement, that's a criminal FACT.

I have to agree, TES games have often done this well. Skyrim far less so though. They just made it so that the Stormcloaks and Imperials were both idiots together, and I wanted nothing to do with either of them.

Aye, Witcher II is the king of this element