Yes - I've listened to it several times over. I just don't hear Paarthanaax's name.

He says: "Cowardly mortals! What have you done? What twisted words have you created? Treacherous Paarthurnax! My teeth to his neck!"

I had subtitles on when playing, so I got the whole conversation. That's the best video capture of it I've found on YouTube. Now, you can either choose to believe I'm not going to elaborate lengths to trick you to score Internet Points, or you can pay attention the next time you play through that bit, or, I'm sure there's a third option, the one you'll no doubt take...

I don't play with subtitles, so I'll take your word for it. It doesn't change much, though. Paarthanaax claims he's unable to comprehend the shout, which means Alduin wrongly blames Paarthanaax or he's angry at him for a different reason. There's a 3rd possibility - that Paarthanaax was lying about not knowing the shout.

The only plausible reason he would be angry at Paarthurnax in that context is for the fact that humans can shout at all in the first place. Or do you figure it's "Treacherous Paarthurnax! He was supposed to bring me my mead at right this second!"? Paarthurnax lying about not being able to comprehend Dragonrend would make no sense, since the shout's whole mechanism of working is based on the fact that dragons can't comprehend it, and it does work on him. And once you've got the Elder Scroll, you can just go learn the shout anyway, so it doesn't do him any good to hide it.

Actually, I figured it's more like, "Damn Paarthanaax! If he hadn't tried to usurp my place and started this whole mess, those upstart humans would never have gotten it into their heads to challenge me!"

Why was Paarthurnax his first thought right after being shouted at, when it was the humans who attacked him? He's fighting humans at that moment, Paarthurnax is a non-sequitur, unless he's responsible for the shouts. Looking from where I'm standing, you seem to go into quite the gymnastics to avoid entertaining the idea that there might be some dragons who aren't utterly evil and in need of some good old-fashioned killin'.

Who knows? Bethesda isn't known for sterling logic in their plots. Just look at the MQ in Oblivion - that required quite a stretch to swallow, too. BTW, I don't regard the dragons as being any more evil than any of the animals my characters slaughter throughout the game. I just don't credit them with human attributes.

i am getting that feeling also....i guess i am just mad because they ar e confused about the prioties of the blades and i was expecting to get my own blade bodyguard network...i can understand that pretty much that oath pretty much died with martin when the last dragonborn emporer died twice on thier watch "one was bad, the other was a sacrifise so i dotn blame the second one thye just failed with the first one". that maybe they feel that the whole devotion to the dragonborn is pretty much done...BUT thats the whole deal with the blades is that they serve protect and advise the dragonborn...its not thier job to hunt dragons, that was thier job BEFORE the blades were created...its just cmon just quit calling urself blades and call urself for what u really are trying to be "dragonguards"

but like the situations with the other themes, i wish u could correct this like u could in the other situations. I mean cmon the dragonborn does not join the blades...the blades are a tool for the dragonborn to be used how he decides. I just thought that hearing AND reading from them that they have spent the last 200 years waiting for the dragonborn to SERVE and PROTECT straight from delphie's mouth...i just cant wrap myself around the ultimatum.

Skyrim's quest writing is leaps and bounds ahead of Oblivion, IMHO. It's not on the level of Morrowind, mind you, but some thought has clearly been put into the quest dialogue.


Well, they're clearly sentient, judging by the fact that you can have intelligent conversations with them in the game. If you consider them "animals", you probably consider, say, orcs and argonians animals too then?

I disagree on the first point. The quality seems to be all over the place. If the faction conflict between the Blades and the Greybeards had been better handled, this thread would likely not exist.

I don't consider the dragons to be animals - I just don't consider them to be any more evil than them. I think it's a mistake to attribute them as either good or evil. They're highly intelligent, very dangerous, and have their own motivations that don't necessarily align with those of the mortal races.

I myself consider it a sign of good writing that people are continuously having conversations about the deeper meanings inside the game, and the philosophies of various factions.


Paarthurnax decided to help you. Odahviing decided to not betray you once you let him go from Dragonreach. These aren't beings driven by instinct and unable to change their behavior(any less than humans, at any rate). Their origins might be alien to us, but if they're capable of hate, fear, ambition, etc. it'd be silly to think that they aren't capable of other "human" emotions. Especially the ones who've interacted with humans for thousands of years.

Except that looking at this thread, there are very few debating any sort of meaning. It's primarily loaded with complaints about a faction being ruined because its members don't fit their ideal. I see the Greybeards being accepted as an objectively "good" faction - there is virtually no debate on that. That is not good writing.

In regards to your second point: Flemeth. She was brilliantly done - her motives were hidden, she was old and very powerful, shrouded in myth, had a record of dealing with others, helped the protaganists, and clearly not to be trusted, ever. Some even believed killing her was an outright betrayal (making me wonder if Bethesda wasn't influenced by Bioware). Now, why shouldn't I believe the same of Paathanaax?

Yeah, I hate the "objective" morality talk.

Don't get me wrong, I like playing different storylines/characters, with different motivations, but there's no clear right or wrong about the situations presented.

for those of you who claim that Paarthurnaax taught humans to Shout, remember that Arngeir outright tells you to HEAR the WORD in YOUR HEART before you can use it in a shout, basically saying that even if you can read and understand the word, it won't work unless you FEEL it.

I doubt that the Greybeards are even meant to be an objectively "good" faction. They're neutral and make a conscious effort to remain so. You've no doubt seen the constant Stormcloaks vs Imperials threads on this board. The writing hits its mark more often than it misses.


Flemeth? Google says that the name has something to do with Dragon Age. Never played the game after the first 8 or so hours of DA:O turned out to be a giant steaming pile of cliche, so I can't say one way or other about Flemeth.


To state the obvious: Because it's a different game, different game world and a different character.

Look, judging from your avatar, you like japanese games, so you might be under the impression that every fictional character is meant to be a representation of some broad archetype and not an individual, but that's not how it works in TES.

I don't see your point. How does that say anything about the origin of the shouts?

On a sidenote, I like that you have a Ming the Merciless avatar. You do know that's Esbern, right? His most evil incarnation, that is.

Of course.

I'm not disputing that the writing for the Civil War questline was exceptionally well-done. That still doesn't change my opinion that the MQ was poorly done.

Alright, you're determined to argue that Paarthanaax is good because he is helpful.

That's an interesting leap of logic you've made about my avatar. However, I'll have to shoot down your theory and leave it at that.

My point is not that he's "good". Nobody is completely good. My point is that he doesn't necessarily deserve to die, and the Blades are cavalier(*snerk*) in their decision to make you just go and summarily execute him for something he did 5000 years ago, after he's just helped you save the world. If he did help save the world in the past already, that's twice he's done it. Clearly, once is not enough?

There's also the minor implication of, if the Blades are willing bend their morals enough to use someone as long as they're useful, and then get them killed, what's stopping them from doing that to you? You're a dragon in human/mer form after all, and therefor an "uncontrollable beast, and thoroughly evil".


You yourself gave me reason to think that. Based on how you got terribly confused by the fact that two characters in different games by different companies aren't written similarly.

The Blades counted assassins, thieves, and spies among their ranks. These weren't the guys you joined if you had a strict moral code. I don't dispute that the quest to kill Paarthanaax was poorly handled. That's a point I've been arguing for some time.

Your final point was a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. Let's drop it, shall we?

There's the biggest failing of main quest writing in the game: being forced to join the Blades. I've always thought them buffoons, but they were much better executed in Morrowind and Daggerfall. As in, you could mostly ignore them. Joining the Blades implies that you care about the preservation of the Empire. That used to be their only motivation. Which is out of character for many peoples' characters.

I'd like to think that the Skyrim Blades are on purpose written the way they are: Lost, out of their time, and in search of meaning, desperately looking for an enemy they can fight successfully, and using the dragonborn as their weapon to lash out, since they themselves are full of bark, but no bite. Hell, the entirety of "The Blades" seems to be Delphine, who comes off as a survivalist hokerr, holed up in her basemant, fighting her personal war, and Esbern, who seems much more concerned about the past than the present.



Alright. It seems we have rather different views on what makes the fundamentals of good storytelling, but there's probably no point in discussing that further...

I think Paarth has helped, but I don't know if he did it to save the world per se. I think he's more against Alduin particularly, not for people necessarily. His sympathies changed when Alduin started considering himself a god. And he doesn't seem to feel too much remorse about his participation otherwise or his crimes. "I am as Akatosh made me." He's resigned to being fated, and sees no reason for a specific apology. He says himself that he understands the Blades. "I would not trust another Dovah." Everything revolves around him just being a force of nature, and to his credit, quelling that. But it's not pity for humans. He'd probably apologize if that was the case.

It's the same type of defense a poor man might make if he steals something. That he was fated to do so. Some people might understand that, some might not.

I don't think Paarthanaax actually regards his actions as crimes. Why should he? He was acting on behalf of his kind.

He doesn't have anything to apologize the player character for. Everyone he has wronged is long dead. Dragons were made to do one thing: To eat the Mundus, so a new one could be made. They however started to show personalities. Alduin became power-hungry, and Paarthurnax grew a conscience at some point, and should you believe the lore, he gave the Nords thu'um, so they could break free of his domination. He's spent 5000 years atoning for his deeds, and has built a group of people that he could use to gain vast power. He's had the 5000 years to do that, yet he chose not to for some reason. Instead he teaches them pacifism and restraint. Maybe it's a devious plot, maybe he has reformed?

I guess it boils down to if you believe if punishing crimes is done for revenge, or to reform people so they become productive members of the society. I belong to the latter camp, so current actions and beliefs of someone matter much more than what they've done in the past.