So if he has nothing to apologize to the player character for, the player character has no reason to be obligated to forgive him either.

Following that logic, the player character has nothing to accuse him of either.

Exactly. It all comes down to our whims. Not morals.

Sweet mother of [censored], you really do have a need to project motivations on characters they haven't shown any hint of possessing. The only group that's written as cackling and goose-stepping evil in this game are the Thalmor. The rest of them luckily have more nuance than that.

Well yeah. It's a game, and nothing we do in it has any real consequences. I seriously hope that isn't a massive philosophical revelation to anyone reading this thread. Besides, if you want to go that route, why even have this discussion? All this stuff is being discussed in the context of the game world. Part of the fun is to pretend that it actually has moral and ethical implications. If you run around the thread going "LOLOL none of this stuff matters!" you're not really contributing anything to the thread.

Why am I here? I have time to waste.

And I kind of like some of you.

You're the one who keeps insisting on bringing good and evil into the argument. What does that have to do with war? Each side is always going to believe they're in the right, and that the other side was wrong.

If you want to kill someone in the game "just because", why even speculate on that character's motives? It's almost like you're looking for a justification for killing them...

Your first post in the thread:


Why is the desire to spare Paarthurnax laughably naive? Is that not black/white good/evil dichotomy right there?

I'm here to pass the time too, but I'm sort of used to discussion where people, when faced with an argument, don't go "PBTHH! NONE OF THIS MATTERS ANYWAY!". That kind of defeats the point of having a discussion, since people are just yelling opinions at eachother.

Because it's plausible to believe Paarhanax may try to return things to the way they were prior to the Dragon Wars, albeit with some changes. You can ascribe any motive to that - from him being a card-carrying member of the "Rule the world club", to thinking that was the best way to keep the peace between dragons and men because that's the way it was until someone upset the apple cart.

Well, if we're going to get philosophical, my opinion is that objective morals are lame. Both in games and in life. Idealism tends to rub me wrong. Everything always comes down to perspective. There's an objective morality when it comes to what works best for the most people, but there's nothing like this going on this game's scenario. You're left to jump into the unknown, no matter what. If some people want to pat themselves on the back and say they had the moral choice, and the other was "evil", to each their own. I think they're deluded though.

He's had 5000 years to make power plays. Instead, he sat in seclusion, teaching pacifism. Hundreds of years went past when there were no dragon hunters around. Why make his move now? If you want to be paranoid, better watch out in case Lucan Valerius decides to stab you in the back for shaving some gold off his Golden Claw. He does comment on it being lighter than he remembers after all, and the Valeriuses tend to go on about nothing but the Claw...
You can ascribe anyone any motives you like, but there's very little in the game hinting at Unca Paarth wanting to reclaim his leadership position of the dragons. Instead, it comes of as you wanting to ascribe them less-than-altruistic motives, for whatever reason.

I agree on objective morals and Idealism. The Blades and Vigilants of Stendarr rub me wrong for the same reason. When strict morals are applied to people with varied situations and backgrounds, innocent people tend to get hurt. And there are varied levels of "innocent". Most people have done things they aren't proud of, and the mongers of "absolute morality" prey on that to control people.

How you approach the morality in Skyrim completely depends on the character you play of course, but it doesn't remove the fact that some choices will result in more objective good in Tamriel than others. All this is by design by Bethesda. Some of the stories, like the Blades vs Paarthurnax bit are designed to make you question the ethics of different choices you make in the game. Whether you want to enjoy that part of the game, or ignore it, is up to you.

Just as a footnote, there's a difference between objective morals and absolute or universal morals. Objective simply means that there actually is a correct answer, regardless of whether we can know it at all. Universal or absolute morals are the ones that tend to annoy thinking people, as the assertions "action A is always right" and "action B is always wrong" are highly likely to be incorrect.

This has been a message from your neighborhood pedant.

Now, as far as killing Big P is concerned, Delphine is free to demand it, but it is a morally suspect demand. There are potential justifications for it under both Kantian and Consequentialist frameworks, but I think those justifications are weaker than their objections under those same frameworks.

It was a test. They don't really care about some old dragon up in the mountain or the deaths of people those names have long been forgotten.

What they want is to test how far the dragonborn's chains can be yanked. If you can be pushed to kill your own mentor, then the following can be accomplished:

1. Use the dragonborn to build a cult (the Blades).
2. Name dragonborn as incanation of Talos. Who can really argue against that since he is the master of the voice and has slain the World Eater.
3. Use (2) as the claim to the Imperial throne.
4. Use the power of the dragonborn, the cult and the stormcloaks to capture the Imperial throne.
5. Become the advisor to the Emperor.
6. Profit.

LOL It certainly would be following in Talos's foosteps (I can't recall the name, the Jarl? he answered to died under some suspicious circumstances.)

That seems like something Delphine would do, from what we have seen of her modus operandi just within the timeline of the game.

But the DB wouldn't be able to assassinate the Emperor without the Listener because it was the Nightmother who told the DB about the Contract in the first place


And I think its not that people are wanting to side with P because its the good side, its just they don't want to kill him and can't get the [censored] Misc quest thing to go away


Also why do people think the Emperor will die on his ship in solitude?... If you don't join the Dark Brotherhood he won't even come to Skyrim because he wasn't going to even BE there for his cousin's wedding, and only chooses to come AFTER she dies.

He saw the power of the Elder Scroll & Dragonrend. It is the nature of the wild beasts to submitt to the dominant. On a side note I'm pretty sure the Thumm or the natural & inherent ability of it in mortals was a gfit from Akatosh. I am not sure how Kynareth got svcked in this debate.

Kynareth is mentioned in the Tablets... also, the Greybeards see her as a patron.

I've been confused on that too though. Why doesn't Akatosh play this big of a part in the Dragon Wars.

I chalk it up to those tablets containing what the Greybeards believe. It kinda of makes sense, since the Nords apparently never saw Akatosh in quite the same light as the Imperials.