At the end of the day, Harkon is doing justice for his people and in turn killing for them. Is this so different from the Stormcloaks or realistically any faction in Elder Scrolls (including yourself). My character has killed 1,500 odd people and as such isn't exactly an arbiter of morality. The Stormcloaks started a war because of one God, a God everyone still worshiped despite the ban, the Dominion kills for racial purity and everyone else has their own reasons, it could be argued that survival of your people is a bit more of a reason for killing than God or purity.

What I mean though is that I hope Harkon presents himself and his faction as moral even if you choose Dawnguard and I hope he isn't the typical sort who would attempt such a thing. I realise what he's doing is hardly right but he does so for the betterment of his people and the protection of them in relation to prophecy. The Dawnguard on the other hand kill his people in cold blood. Surely curing a Vampire is what would be moral? I see to much assumption that Dawnguard are the 'good guys' and find it hilarious that anyone could present themselves as 'good guys' whilst playing a game such as this.

This was more in response to the amount of rhetoric I see about 'Vampires' being posted as though they're inherently evil and the Dawnguard are saviours.

You can't justify harming others to help your own people. A man named Hitler tried to do this and it didn't exactly workout for him. I do see your point though and I do hope that the decision between the two factions is as morally difficult as you say.

The morality of the main character for the Elder Scrolls series has never really been looked into. It was always just do what you gotta do. The role of the character and his main quest is really the only thing anyone ever seems to care about
RandomCitizen:" You are Dragonborn! You will save the world! "
Dragonborn:" I'm in the Dark Brotherhood and I've killed over 8,000 people here in Skyrim "
RandomCitizen:" ..... All hail Dragonborn! Our Savior! "

This isn't Fable, Betheseda doesn't care if your evil or good. But they give you the option to be, AND don't make it their main focus for every. single. game.

No, Hitler did it mostly for racial purity, hence the concept of the Aryans which is more akin to the Thalmor than Volkihar. Also, I take it you're against just about every military force in the world then as they harm others to "help their own people" and sometimes even in cases where there people are not in harms way.

Also, Godwin's law was broken in the first post, awesome.

I don't want to be 'told off' by Bethesda, just for the character to be tackled more than his is by people, it's why I liked when Tullius dies, he gives you something to think about rather than "I won, [censored]!"

Yes i remember there was a big morality decision and it's not about who to join.

I agree I too hope that Harkon isn't just portrayed as some maniac and that he does actually want to help his people and not just gain some immense power or something like that saying that the Dawnguard are the "good" guys and that helping them is the morally correct choice is like saying you should kill Astrid when you first meet her in the abandoned shack and then going to help the penitus oculatus destroy the dark brotherhood because their evil.

Indeed! The vampires want to save their own race the best way they can. Aerin, you shared my eact thoughts! You are my new forum friend!

Biting a persons neck, svcking the blood from them, then leaving them there to die, and if they do survive they have to do the same exact horrible thing to athers in order to survive.

There is no morality in this, it's just purely evil.

I hope Harkon is that way as well. I don't want to see him as just another evil vampire character.

It more or less is based on the person doing it's own decision if all vampires are to be condemned because of a few that do bad things do all the good ones deserve death?

Killing because you have to versus killing because you want to, eh? Not saying it's right either way more that a Vampire has the compulsion to feed whereas I don't think that a soldierhas to kill. A Soldier kills as a choice whereas a Vampire kills because he has to feed.

Why would vampires even leave their prey to die? They most likely kill them. By chance, the prey escapes and gets infected. Read "Vampires of Illiac Bay". The vampire was going to try and feed on him, but he fled away and got infected. It was his fault he did not take the nescessary precautions.

If they don't feed, they become blood-starved which eventually leads into a coma. There is no morality. because such things do not apply in the game of predator and prey.

You make a point. It appears as though the dawnguard hate them and kill them simply for being different. That kind of thinking always works out

What I'm saying is that if you are a vampire and get infected, the only moral choices are to seek a cure as soon as possible and never feed, or just don't feed at all and suffer the consequences.

It svcks, but it's fate.

Hi there Aerin.


I fear this wlll soon turn into a mean discussion on morals, where the usual vampire apologists parade their body counts like war medals. The best thing about in-game vampires is that they're more suited than hay stacks for target practice.

I see a moral debate coming on.

Just thought that part needed a little emphasis

Makes me wonder why Sybille Stentor never cured herself, actually?

My point was that the Vampires are as immoral as soldiers and the Dawnguard and I hope that makes an interesting plot-point. Not that they're by any means the 'Good guys'. I know your post doesn't indicate I do believe this, I just want to clear that up in relation to morals.

Not if you're the vampire, then you're just getting a snack. No different from the hunter killing a deer.

As for the OP, the Aldmeri Diminion are portrayed as purely evil with no redeeming qualities what so ever, so I don't see why you bring them into the point you are making. I will say though that unless you're a vampire, or want to be, in which case you're quite evil indeed, there's nothing that would get a relatively "moral" character to join any vampire faction.

Hi again.


Let me ask you this. What's inherently virtuous about being a vampire? Is it the assorted powers you get?

Yes they do, when the predator is a moral agent, or I could hunt you down and kill you if I need another liver and no one would think it wrong.


Agreed on the assumption, though people make it about real life armies all the time as well. On the game - well, actually, I do think my Lvl 48 good character is pretty good; but she has not killed anyone at all. I made a thoroughly evil character to do all the quests she can't do, and it is rather ridiculous how little difference that makes to the way the rest of Skyrim treats me.

I fear this will become a greater debate where Dawnguard supporters will try to enforce their subjective concepts.

Press z to debunk
Excuse me for budging in but some become one just for the increased lifespan after all death is a unknown and anybody is afraid of the unknown.

It will be...Might as well get out before the [censored]storm

Derp. Oh Hai there, VideoGameMage!

I might stick around.