Killing the Blades

[Spagelo]

Now, I'm a PC gamer. Most likely, so are you. And I think a few of us have removed the "essential" status from the characters.

 

I killed Esbern and Delphine. Can you guess why? Because on a fundamental level, it was the right thing to do. Throughout the main questline, I picked up little details here and there, such as Arngeir saying that if the Blades hadn't hunted the Dovah to extinction, they might have dragon allies, and Paarthurnax's mission to bring the dragons to the Way of the Voice and become peaceful, which seemed to have been working. The Blades are not a peaceful organization, and therefore after Alduin's demise, they stand in the way of a better future in the long run. They believe that they can drive out hate with hate, and violence with violence. They cannot be swayed, they are dead set on killing Dovah. Delphine, who would far outlast Esbern and his wisdom, is headstrong, violent, closed-minded, and uncompromising. She bears ancient grudges and hatreds which she cannot let go, and is therefore a burden of the past. So I killed them both, perhaps letting the Blades be lost to history, and hopefully helping to open the door of progress.

 

But on a moral level... I don't know. It's a cold-blooded betrayal to people who trusted me. It seems wrong, but I think it was right.

 

So, discuss.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Spagelo

[iXenite]

I'll put my post under a spoiler tag just in case someone that hasn't played the game, for whatever reasons, stumbles into this thread.

 

 

You have a point. However, I think the Blades offer a lot more than just killing off the dragons. For instance, Esbern has dedicated his life to studying the Akaviri and to kill him will mean the loss of that knowledge. In addition to that, the Blades themselves are an honorable group that has a very strong link to the history of both Tamriel and the Empire. The Blades want to kill all of the remaining dragons, this is true. Paarthurnax seems pleasant enough and is friends with the Greybeards, who tell you the Blades can't be trusted.

 

However, the Greybeards also said that Tiber Septim should have stayed with them instead of conquering all of Tamriel, right? The Greybeards find the "Voice" to be something they use only in a spiritual sense, and not for combat or violence. However, can anyone really say the Dragonborn of prophecy is a figure of peace? Sure they killed Alduin and stopped him from swallowing the world, but are they truly peaceful? Throughout the Dragonborn's quest they kill countless dragons, people, misc. creatures and undead. You could say these killings were done to help move toward peace, but in the end do they really coincide with what the Greybeards want the Dragonborn to be? Not really.

 

Paarthurnax is also not a truly nice dragon, he has committed horrible atrocities to man before and even tells you how difficult it is for him to stay on the path he has set for himself (following the "Way of the Voice"). Just because dragons like him have helped the Dragonborn during their quest, did they do it out of kindness for the people of Tamriel or for other reasons? Paarthurnax dislikes Alduin because he find Alduin to be arrogant, and dislikes Alduin's self-professing of Godhood. Odahviing only respects the power of your shouts, not really the people of Tamriel. Plus, he also likes that you were capable of slaying Alduin. In the end, I don't really trust the dragons all that much. Some show faith in the Dragonborn, but are they really true allies? In the game they are allies, but what about in the long run? Naturally we don't know.

 

As for the Blades, they are a dying group. They have noble roots and strong ties to the Empire of old. However, besides wanting to free Tamriel of the dragon threat, what else do they plan to do? They don't really provide that much for the people of Tamriel either, other then eliminating any threat of future dragon attacks. I suppose it is possible to theorize them as villains, but I personally have difficulty doing it.

 

With all of that said, I have never actually killed Paarthurnax. Not from lack of trying, but because I never really bothered to. Could he become dangerous? Most certainly. But is he dangerous right now? No, he isn't. I see no real reason to kill him while he is non-hostile. That's my somewhat disorganized thoughts on the matter. Sorry for the long post.

 

 

P.S. You should probably post this here next time.

 

https://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/forum/413-skyrim-spoilers/

[Spagelo]

I'll put my post under a spoiler tag just in case someone that hasn't played the game, for whatever reasons, stumbles into this thread.

 

 

You have a point. However, I think the Blades offer a lot more than just killing off the dragons. For instance, Esbern has dedicated his life to studying the Akaviri and to kill him will mean the loss of that knowledge. In addition to that, the Blades themselves are an honorable group that has a very strong link to the history of both Tamriel and the Empire. The Blades want to kill all of the remaining dragons, this is true. Paarthurnax seems pleasant enough and is friends with the Greybeards, who tell you the Blades can't be trusted.

 

However, the Greybeards also said that Tiber Septim should have stayed with them instead of conquering all of Tamriel, right? The Greybeards find the "Voice" to be something they use only in a spiritual sense, and not for combat or violence. However, can anyone really say the Dragonborn of prophecy is a figure of peace? Sure they killed Alduin and stopped him from swallowing the world, but are they truly peaceful? Throughout the Dragonborn's quest they kill countless dragons, people, misc. creatures and undead. You could say these killings were done to help move toward peace, but in the end do they really coincide with what the Greybeards want the Dragonborn to be? Not really.

 

Paarthurnax is also not a truly nice dragon, he has committed horrible atrocities to man before and even tells you how difficult it is for him to stay on the path he has set for himself (following the "Way of the Voice"). Just because dragons like him have helped the Dragonborn during their quest, did they do it out of kindness for the people of Tamriel or for other reasons? Paarthurnax dislikes Alduin because he find Alduin to be arrogant, and dislikes Alduin's self-professing of Godhood. Odahviing only respects the power of your shouts, not really the people of Tamriel. Plus, he also likes that you were capable of slaying Alduin. In the end, I don't really trust the dragons all that much. Some show faith in the Dragonborn, but are they really true allies? In the game they are allies, but what about in the long run? Naturally we don't know.

 

As for the Blades, they are a dying group. They have noble roots and strong ties to the Empire of old. However, besides wanting to free Tamriel of the dragon threat, what else do they plan to do? They don't really provide that much for the people of Tamriel either, other then eliminating any threat of future dragon attacks. I suppose it is possible to theorize them as villains, but I personally have difficulty doing it.

 

With all of that said, I have never actually killed Paarthurnax. Not from lack of trying, but because I never really bothered to. Could he become dangerous? Most certainly. But is he dangerous right now? No, he isn't. I see no real reason to kill him while he is non-hostile. That's my somewhat disorganized thoughts on the matter. Sorry for the long post.

 

 

P.S. You should probably post this here next time.

 

https://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/forum/413-skyrim-spoilers/

 

Thank you. I think that you definitely have a point, but neither way is certain. It's hard to tell what the future holds.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Spagelo

[metaphorset]

I'll put my post under a spoiler tag just in case someone that hasn't played the game, for whatever reasons, stumbles into this thread.

 

 

Everything in between ...

 

 

P.S. You should probably post this here next time.

 

https://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/forum/413-skyrim-spoilers/

 

While everything in your spoiler section sounds reasonable within the game that Skyrim (sadly) is, it probably would be a whole different story if we actually were able to play a real RPG. You know, a game where the player would have real choices.

 

In a real RPG, instead of a brute, you would be able to play a more stealthy character that would knock down enemies or use sleep darts, then hiding them in a dark corner or an unused room. A magician would use similar tactics. All those decisions could have lead to different possibilities and outcomes, like we had in Fallout 3/NV and many older games. Or even something simple as "Zero Bunnies Slaughtered" in the statistics. It also means that someone would have to put a lot more effort and work into the making of such a game...

 

Buuut it seams that "modern" Gamers do not understand such complex gameplay mechanics - or at least Bethesda thinks so. They might be right, after all the negative rants they received for the FO3 pre DLC ending...

 

The thing is that Skyrim tried too hard to be as many different games as possible. Same (even worse) goes for FO4.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by metaphorset

[metaphorset]

Now, I'm a PC gamer. Most likely, so are you. And I think a few of us have removed the "essential" status from the characters.

 

I killed Esbern and Delphine. Can you guess why? Because on a fundamental level, it was the right thing to do. Throughout the main questline, I picked up little details here and there, such as Arngeir saying that if the Blades hadn't hunted the Dovah to extinction, they might have dragon allies, and Paarthurnax's mission to bring the dragons to the Way of the Voice and become peaceful, which seemed to have been working. The Blades are not a peaceful organization, and therefore after Alduin's demise, they stand in the way of a better future in the long run. They believe that they can drive out hate with hate, and violence with violence. They cannot be swayed, they are dead set on killing Dovah. Delphine, who would far outlast Esbern and his wisdom, is headstrong, violent, closed-minded, and uncompromising. She bears ancient grudges and hatreds which she cannot let go, and is therefore a burden of the past. So I killed them both, perhaps letting the Blades be lost to history, and hopefully helping to open the door of progress.

 

But on a moral level... I don't know. It's a cold-blooded betrayal to people who trusted me. It seems wrong, but I think it was right.

 

So, discuss.

 

There is a mod, "The Paarthurnax Dilemma", that tries to address the problem differently. And not too bad, in my opinion.

 

In Morrowind and Oblivion, the Blades were just members of an elite Order of the Empire. While they actually were descendants of the Akaviri Dragonguard, their only true connection to Dragons seemed to be the protectors and servants of those who are blessed with Dragon Blood by Akatosh. As such they actually should follow the lead and answer to the Dragonborn. Even if the Dragonborn might not be "Emperor Material" (for whatever reason, at least he seems to be no Pelagius, but again - this is a TES Game, oh well... ), he is the only person who is able to handle the crisis that could mean the end for all of Tamriel.

 

The main problem with TES games is the constant "improvements" of the lore. Sometimes it feels like solving a Rubic's Cube by nibbling off all the stickers, sorting them by color and then putting them back on. The solution is messy, but who cares... ;-)

[iXenite]

 

 

While everything in your spoiler section sounds reasonable within the game that Skyrim (sadly) is, it probably would be a whole different story if we actually were able to play a real RPG. You know, a game where the player would have real choices.

 

In a real RPG, instead of a brute, you would be able to play a more stealthy character that would knock down enemies or use sleep darts, then hiding them in a dark corner or an unused room. A magician would use similar tactics. All those decisions could have lead to different possibilities and outcomes, like we had in Fallout 3/NV and many older games. Or even something simple as "Zero Bunnies Slaughtered" in the statistics. It also means that someone would have to put a lot more effort and work into the making of such a game...

 

Buuut it seams that "modern" Gamers do not understand such complex gameplay mechanics - or at least Bethesda thinks so. They might be right, after all the negative rants they received for the FO3 pre DLC ending...

 

The thing is that Skyrim tried too hard to be as many different games as possible. Same (even worse) goes for FO4.

 

 

 

 

I have never seen anyone compliment Fallout 3 as being a complex RPG with any nuance to it all. You're the first. The ending to Fallout 3 showcased that games largest flaw, and that was play choice was always meaningless. Even post-DLC the games ending was pointless, just like Fallout 4's. I love Fallout 3 to pieces, but the ending is garbage and not worth it at all in my opinion.

[metaphorset]

 

I have never seen anyone compliment Fallout 3 as being a complex RPG with any nuance to it all. You're the first. The ending to Fallout 3 showcased that games largest flaw, and that was play choice was always meaningless. Even post-DLC the games ending was pointless, just like Fallout 4's. I love Fallout 3 to pieces, but the ending is garbage and not worth it at all in my opinion.

 

In my FO3 rant I referred to the Pre-DLC version, which had different outcomes, defined by the player's actions. Those weren't the best but it was still much more than FO4 has to offer (only hearsay, because I haven't finished the game and I probably never will. Played 6 hours on a friend's PC who brought it over for me to fix it).

There were many complaints about the fact that FO3 (again - pre-dlc) had an ending in the first place. Some said "It doesn't match the roleplaying idea", others complaint about the fact that "it doesn't match the Sandbox idea".

So in the end, Bethesda "learned" the lesson and delivered Skyrim, where there is no karma, no choices in general (besides of "Gray-Mane or Battleborn") and all the major quests in this open world would lead you in circles until you follow the exact path they had planned for you to take.

 

There is no "perfect open world RPG" and there never will be one. In the end, it's not even the question if Paarthurnax survives or dies, since we will read about that in some lore book in the next TES game and even then it's not sure if they stay in the chosen track. In my opinion, role playing has nothing to do with "have it my way", but it should at least feel rewarding instead of only time-consuming.

[iXenite]

Roleplaying suggests there is some amount of choice though, and Fallout 3 really isn't that good at expressing the importance of any of those choices in the end of them game. However, if you liked the ending to Fallout 3 you probably wouldn't find anything too wrong with Fallout 4. The way both endings ignore anything you did in the game is exactly the same, and as such should be just fine for you. For me, in my personal opinion, I was disappointed with the ending narrations for both Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 as they were very shallow, and showed me that my choices were meaningless. I think Skyrim is a much better roleplaying game than either Fallout 3 or Fallout 4 - as they both allow you to assume a role. Just my opinion.

[Argonian50]

I wouldn't say there is no perfect game, because I have been playing since Morrowind.

 

Could they be better? Perhaps.

 

If I were given the option of tossing away a game in the TES Universe, it would be Oblivion.

 

Compared to Morrowind and Skyrim, the game doesn't make any sense to me.

 

The moving through Oblivion was cool, but I had several bug issues with Oblivion that I wouldn't really miss it.

 

Argonian50