BrettM

There is also a series of books in the game titled The Rising Threat that were written by an Altmer refugee who fled the Thalmor after the Oblivion Crisis. The author was trying to warn the Empire about the Thalmor before the Great War, but it seems the Empire just ignored him. They give some insights as to how the Thalmor came to power during the Oblivion crisis.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but this dead dragon seems to be very persistent. I think I've disabled him half a dozen times now, and he still keeps appearing off and on, mostly in Riften but occasionally paying me a surprise visit in other locations. The ID shown when I click on him is 00013b68, if that information is of any help.

I think the damage is about the same either way. I went Stormcloak and the lingering damage is minor. Just enough to remind one that a battle took place. The battle itself is the uncomfortable experience. I did everything I could to get to Dragonsreach as quickly as possible, doing the least amount of killing that I could on the way. I tried especially hard to avoid killing Whiterun Guards. It really hurt when Balgruuf said he expected better of me, since I did like the guy and he did back me up in capturing Ohdaving. A day or so later, I checked up on all the NPCs to see if everyone was okay and what they thought about the events. There isn't any noticeable change in alignments, though. The Stormcloak supporters are mildly happy that we won, the Empire supporters are unhappy, and the neutrals are a little POed at the disruption to business. I had done the main quest line, including the truce, before doing anything about joining the civil war. The truce is no real solution to the problem because it still does not end the fighting permanently. Or even noticeably. It just shifts some troops around depending on which holds you gave to which sides. It isn't a long-term peace because it does not address or resolve any of the underlying issues.

I don't know about serving Dragonborn in general, but the Blades certainly had an oath to serve the Dragonborn Emperors, along with their oath to exterminate dragonkind. When Delphine and Esbern learned about Paarth, the two oaths were in conflict, since the Graybeards -- including their mysterious leader -- were under the explicit protection of those emperors. (I get the feeling that the Dragonborn Emperors, if not the later ones, knew about Paarth but didn't bother telling the Blades. In fact, Paarth may be the unstated reason why the order of protection was given in the first place.) Delphine and Esbern chose to honor their oath against dragons over their oath to serve the emperor. They couldn't be bothered to do their own moral reasoning, but stuck with the simple logic of "Blades kill dragons, Paarth is a dragon, thus Paarth must be killed." Delphine is a simple warrior, so perhaps we shouldn't expect better of her. But, what about Esbern, who is a man of learning and lore? I am certainly surprised that it is impossible to reason with him on the issue.

When exiting a dungeon, I saw three guys in heavy armor walking towards me. They became hostile on approach and I had to kill them, noting that they were labeled as "thugs". One was carrying a contract from Septimus Signus with orders to teach me a lesson about theft. The funny thing was that I never touched a thing in his outpost until after Hermaeus Mora turned him into a pile of ash, at which point I took a couple of books I wanted from his shelves on the way out. Apparently dead people can put out contracts on you, which is a pretty neat trick.

Thank you. The dragon has broken free of Riften and is following me around again (though not consistently), becoming a real pita. Next time he shows up, he's history.

Yesterday I was killing the giant in Giant's Grove for Chief Yamarz while he waited safely out of the way. When I got back to him, there was a dead Elder Dragon lying next to him. WTH? I never heard the sound of a dragon battle back there as I was fighting the giant, and I'm pretty sure that Yamarz coward couldn't have taken one down anyway. He didn't even seem to notice it. But, it burst into flames as I approached, giving me the soul and an opportunity to loot it. Then I remembered that a couple of days ago I was attacked by an Elder Dragon when I traveled to Morthal, and something strange happened. I hit him with the finishing arrow just as he flew off a building, and he flew off to crash over near the mill. Or so I thought. I searched the area for quite some time, but never found his carcass to get my loot and soul. I finally shrugged it off and went about my business. I guessed that this was the same dragon, somehow attached to me until I got his soul. A couple of fast-travels later, suddenly that dead Elder Dragon started showing up everywhere I went, with flesh miraculously restored but no loot or soul. It was something like the way horses behave, except for being useless other than for amusement, and we seemed to be a team. Who wouldn't want a dragon tagging around after them, right? So cool, except for the dead part. Fortunately it stopped after a while ... except for Riften. At first he appeared on the bridge closest to Honeyside every time I went to Riften or exited the house. Later he moved to the next bridge over. Now he is always down in the canal below Snow-Shod Manor, slowly moving over to intersect with the building each time I travel, like something is slowly pulling him in that direction. I think the Snow-Shods are going to have a dead dragon in their basement soon. I'm guessing he settled on Riften because I use Honeyside as my primary dwelling and visit frequently. But, while this is an amusing situation, I think it might be best to put an end to it. Is there a way to make this critter go away?

I regularly get a dragon attack whenever I fast-travel to Morthal or Dawnstar. I've had a couple of attacks in Riverwood, one in Falkreath, one in Winterhold, many outside Riften (stables or docks), one outside Solitude, and a named dragon attacking Rurikstead. The only towns where I have never had an attack so far have been Winterhelm and Markarth. I have only had one attack that actually took place inside one of the walled towns (Solitude) instead of areas just outside the walls. Overall, though, it appears that dragon attacks are possible anywhere at any time.

You seem to have completely missed my point while contradicting yourself. You point out that it is silly to make arguments about normality in a fantasy -- which is exactly what I was trying to point out to the poster I was responding to -- and then proceed to make an argument about the normality of Astrid based on her appearance. In a fantasy, you can't tell who is or isn't normal just by looking at them. Your own character is normal looking for a member of his/her race, but is certainly not normal, being dovahkin. Normal-looking NPCs may be anything but normal, having unsuspected powers or the backing of some Aedra or Daedra. I don't see how it is irrational or silly to point out this simple fact. In terms of game mechanics, many quest givers are unkillable while others are not, but there is no way to tell the difference except by experiment. (And experimenting with the mortality of quest givers does not seem like an advisable course of action.) As a new player to this game, I did not understand that at the time I ran into Astrid. Other games I have played have always made it clear whether or when an NPC is or becomes a legitimate target, and it simply did not occur to me that this game would not do so consistently. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. I find this disappointing. Is that really so hard to understand? I am totally baffled, though, by how you reached the conclusion that I consider this situation to be game breaking or that I hold anything in contempt. Have you even read my posts?

Where do I go to find the official rules on how a journal is "normally" used? This may be the way that you normally use a journal, but that doesn't mean that anyone who does it differently is some kind of deviant. People have different views on the best way to use a journal, and nobody is entitled to call any of these views wrong. How many "normal" people do you know who sit on top of bookcases? How many "normal" people do you know who are capable of kidnapping someone out of their own beds with an armed bodyguard sitting in a chair three feet away and transporting them halfway across a province with all their gear? What evidence did I have at that point to prove that she was a normal person and not some unkillable daedric manifestation sent to test me? I had never met her or heard of her, and she was certainly not acting very normal. Can you kill any given visible NPC in this game, regardless of how normal they might appear? No. Some are marked "essential", at least during certain times, making them unkillable. You can't tell just by looking at them. As a new player, I was trusting the game to tell me if killing that NPC was allowed or not, rather than performing my own experiment. I don't make that mistake any more. Please stop trying to tell me I'm being irrational. It's highly insulting and rude, not to mention counter-factual. My arguments are not lacking in logic, regardless of your opinion, and you are not the only person posting in this thread who is capable of reason.

If you have proof that he did, in fact, change his ways early on, instead of killing hundreds like the Blades say, then this definitely gives out a point to Paarth. All the books I've read and all the dialogue I've heard haven't really given me enough info to conclude that. Though I might've just forgotten it. I was also under the impression that *humans* and not Paarth started the rebellion... Can anyone enlighten me? I know he gave Thuum to men, but I'm pretty sure he was more of just the council guy. He himself said that the turncoat dragons were never trusted enough to be let inside the secret meetings. Now IMHO, I think that those three Nords at the mountaintop were more likely the ones who *started* the revolution after they got Thuum-ed by Paarth. I wasn't claiming that Paarth changed early on, just that he changed of his own volition. He may have killed hundreds first, but there was nothing stopping him from killing hundreds more except his own development of a conscience. To me, he deserves more moral credit for deciding not to continue the killing along with the other dragons than he would if he had helped completely exterminate mortal kind and then come to regret it after it was too late to do anything to atone for his crimes. His moral awakening led to actions that demonstrated his true commitment to reform. Men were helpless against the dragons until Paarth changed his ways and gave them support. Paarth went against the interests of his own kind in teaching the Thu'um to humans, which is an act of rebellion that began the downfall of the dragons, so I would consider Paarth as having started it regardless of whether he actually fought alongside the humans or merely mentored them. Paarth's crimes were very great, but he has spent thousands of years atoning for them and has plans to continue atoning by converting other dragons to a peaceful philosophy. There are two choices here: allow him to continue his atonement to the benefit of all mortal kinds or decorate the mountain top with his decaying carcass. If you want him to pay for his crimes, then which gives you the greater payment? All the Blades seem to want is petty vengeance for people they never knew who would have been dead and buried thousands of years ago in any case, whether killed by dragons or dying in bed at a ripe old age.

I'm a little confused on this point, since it appears that the Empire DID beat the Thalmor at the Battle of the Red Ring. At the time the Concordat was negotiated, the Thalmor army was wiped out, correct? So, even though the imperial troops were decimated and exhausted at the time, what could the Thalmor have done if the Empire had refused to give in regarding Hammerfell and Talos worship? The Empire had little power left, but the Thalmor apparently had none at all, so why did they get to dictate the terms of the treaty as if the Empire had surrendered unconditionally? Usually the winner gets more say in the terms of a treaty, yet the Empire apparently got nothing at all out of it. We are never told of any concessions the Thalmor made as part of the Concordat, but only the issues on which the Empire gave in. This is puzzling me greatly. (P.S. -- Love your user name. I take it that you are the "terror that posts in the night"? :biggrin:)

@sajuukkhar9000: It was not my intention to bash Skyrim, which I am greatly enjoying. But no game is perfect, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing how certain aspects of the quest system impact role playing. If you would care to reread my post, I began it by praising the game for not being morally simplistic. I don't know how you got from that very clear statement to the impression that I would prefer "DUR HUR HUR" gameplay and am some kind of mindless hater who can't assemble a rational argument. I'm not asking that the game always tell me beforehand who is right, or even that there always be a side that is incontrovertibly right. But choices always have consequences, and it feels a little lacking when a quest leaves the player completely in the dark both before and after. "In My Time of Need" clearly did have a side that was more right than the other -- either the woman was a traitor or she was not -- but you are left not ever knowing which side that was and you never experience any consequences. You are asked to make an arbitrary decision based on no evidence other than the he-said/she-said statements of the parties involved. What judge wouldn't dismiss the case for lack of evidence? But you don't get that option, and you never find out whether you chose for more good than ill. Your choice makes no difference, rendering it pointless in terms of character development. I did rather like the quest, but I think it needs a few tweaks before I would join sukeban in calling it one of my favorites. As it stands it is sort of a black hole that absorbs your input and gives nothing back. If the quest log were a journal, I would have the option of writing "I decided not to go on the trip with my friends" and then turning the page, closing it out. Where is that option here? Anything I decide not to pursue stays in the active section of my to-do list. The journal analogy just doesn't seem to be working here, as sukeban pointed out so well. If I don't want to kill one of my followers for Boethiah, why do I have to face constant reminders that I need to do so, mixed in with the things that I am going to do? Do you keep sticky notes on your fridge reminding you to do things you aren't going to do, or do you remove them to keep the clutter down? That quest is history for me, so give me a way to close it out even if it gets marked "failed". "House of Horrors" did indeed MAKE me do part of the quest because there is absolutely no way to get out of the locked house unless you do exactly what the quest log tells you to do -- kill the Vigilant. Now I'm in a locked shack with a quest log telling me to kill one of the captives. How exactly is it "painfully obvious" that two quests that lock you in a location with a similar objective to get out actually operate differently? Some quests you must follow the log, others you can ignore the log, still others you can bug (or bug the followups) if you kill some NPC that you weren't meant to kill. Where the heck is the consistency? How is one supposed to know which is which if the log doesn't give you any indication? Would it really hurt anything to have the log say "kill one of the captives OR kill Astrid"? Other quests do it. As I said, I'm not out to bash Skyrim. This is my first TES game and I have raved about it to others. Like sukeban, I would just like to see more consistency in the quest interface so that a first-time player has better control over the progression of his character and the contents of his "journal". I shouldn't have to wiki everything in advance for fear that agreeing to an innocent-sounding request is suddenly going to rip away my moral choices with no warning.

I understand -- and fully appreciate -- that Skyrim is not some storybook fantasy, with beings of pure virtue facing down a threat of unmitigated evil. The Imperial/Stormclock controversy is a perfect example of that, where the best you can do is to review the evidence and try to pick the greater good (or lesser of two evils) while trying to mitigate what evils you may. I think this is wonderful! I also understand that this is a rough world, where a little street justice is usually the only kind of justice that can be had, and we are the ones who have to apply it. Some of the moral ambiguities, though, are more disturbing, since you never get any confirmation as to whether your choice was right or not. Yet you are forced to make the choice anyway, despite having no rational basis for doing so, because there is never an option to just walk away. Once you are foolish enough to talk to someone and ask the wrong question, a quest pops up and you have no right of refusal. Case in point: In My Time of Need (Discussion spoiler tagged for those who haven't done it.) For those trying to chart a path for a "good" character. it seems too easy to fall into moral traps because of quests that offer no options or those that do not make the options clear. Usually you first know you're in trouble when the quest goal "kill <so-and-so>" pops up for someone you have no reason to kill or "steal <thus-and-such>" from someone you have no reason to rob, but by that time you're in too deep to change your course, or you seem to be. Once you have fallen into one of these traps, there never seems to be a way out except to leave the unresolved quest in your log and vow to never follow up. This is beginning to irritate me. Case in point of a quest with no options: House of Horrors. Case in point of unstated options: With Friends Like These. At the end of the day, this problem is making me more and more reluctant to talk to NPCs of any sort, lest I be forced into one of these traps. This takes a lot of the fun out of exploring, since any conversational option other than "go away" may well dump me into something I'd rather avoid. Curiousity is discouraged, cutting you off from a lot of information. Instead of just playing and experiencing everything first-hand, you end up stopping and checking the wiki for everything if you prefer story spoilers to spoiling your character's role play. This is a disappointing aspect of a great game.

Paarthurnax is not like some war criminal who switched to the winning side to save his own neck or turned good years afterward by reflecting on his past crimes. The Nazi analogy fails, hard, in this case. Paarth managed to recognize his moral error at the very time he was committing his crimes and changed his ways right then and there. HE is the one who started the rebellion against Alduin, teaching Thu'um to men. There was nothing to stop him from staying on the path of atrocity except his own attainment of moral insight, with no outside help or encouragement from any other source of which we know. Good on you, Paarth! He deserves his chance to continue his atonement and bring his enlightenment to other dragons. (Any that I don't turn into a pile of bones first, of course.)

I've followed most of your thought process myself, DarkwingDirk, except for the last point. The Empire's claim to be the bulwark between Tamriel and the Dominion just seems to fail the laugh test. Despite such claims, the Empire accepted a treaty that resulted in the complete loss of Hammerfell and the presence of Thalmor "observers" and "advisors" all over Skyrim. What strength does the Empire have left? A war-torn Cyrodiil is now separated from High Rock by a Thalmor-infested Skyrim, which is a disaster even if there were no rebellion taking place in Skyrim. Everything else once held by the Empire is now gone. The Empire also seems very prone to "kill them all and let the Divines sort them out" justice. They did it to our characters in the beginning, and they seem to still be doing it or allowing it elsewhere, such as in Markarth. After the Empire regained Markarth and betrayed Ulfric, are we really supposed to believe what imperial apologists now tell us about Ulfric's "war crimes" and their pious claims that the Empire would have gladly recognized the Reach as an independant state? The imperials are still there and still keeping Madanach in prison, so books like "The Bear of Markarth" read more like propaganda designed to put a good face on the Empire getting exactly what it wanted. Ulfric is a racist? Maybe so. But, is the Empire so squeaky-clean of crimes against other races and cultures? I think not. Any way you look at it, there is no way to pick a side that removes all doubts about the correctness of your decision.

I've only seen him once so far, when I first discovered Labyrinthian on my way to find the Skyborn Altar. Just as I got to the gate, a ghost horse came up from behind and ran by me. A few seconds later a headless ghost came chasing after. Really gave me the willies, and all I could do was stand there with my mouth open thinking "WTF???" I made no attempt to follow, though, because I was still at a low enough level that frost trolls were having their way with me. When I saw one in there, I never even entered. Which was too bad, because I later found out that the direct, easy path to Skyborn Altar goes right through the middle. I ended up spending a great deal of time skirting the mountains until I found a way to climb up there. OTOH, I discovered a lot of locations in the process, from Labyrinthian all the way around to Ivarstead.

I would probably see even more of such things if I stuck to the roads, but I tend to get frustrated when trying to find the "proper" path to some marker on my compass and I start playing mountain goat to get to it. I have seen a lot of the sights Tidus mentions, though, and met some interesting non-hostiles along the roads. But off-roading has its own compensations, and there are some odd things to be seen out in the wilderness. MeridiesSylva may be right that the burning house was the result of a summoning of some type gone wrong. I remember reading that book, and there was that circle of candles in the corner of the room. I just wish there had been a journal or note around to confirm it. Speaking of strange, the smith in Riverwood (Alvor, the uncle of Hadvar) was killed by a dragon in the middle of the street in front of his house. The body refuses to go away, and is still lying there every time I visit Riverwood, with his wife acting bewildered and the guards questioning me to see if I saw anything. WTH? It's like a Monty Python skit involving completely-clueless cops. Hello, guards? Big scaly thing with wings, breathing fire? Remember? But the people of Skyrim have a great capacity for ignoring dragons flying overhead (Hey, guard, you ought to be one heck of a lot more nervous about that thing above us than about me having my weapon drawn.) or dragon skeletons in the middle of their yards. The funniest NPC death I saw, though, had to be Benor in Morthal. I saw him hanging around by the bridge as usual, when all of a sudden a mudcrab jumps out of the water and one-shots him. ROTFL! Especially when everyone gathered around and the guards went into their questioning-the-witnesses routine.

Another random attack. This time it was a high-elf mage on a lonely road north of Markarth. He didn't have a horse, but M'aiq the Liar was standing nearby saying he was staying out of it. I was coming down a steep mountainside towards the road and didn't realize the action that started down below had anything to do with me -- I was quite a distance away and wondering what M'aiq was staying out of -- until I got hit. I really have to wonder if somebody has a high-level contract out on me. Initiating hostilities from that distance seems to mean that I am being specifically targeted. These guys are not just thugs, and I haven't done anything that would make anyone send thugs after me anyway. But it has now happened in two locations that are about as far apart as you can get in Skyrim. Interesting.

Greetings. I'm new to the forums and to Elder Scrolls, Skyrim being my first. I picked it up a couple of weeks ago and have found it totally addictive despite certain irritations that would have me throw any other game against the wall. (Okay, I downloaded it from Steam so I don't have a physical copy, but I could always burn it to a DVD and then throw it against the wall.) Anyway, I didn't have any time last night to get involved in a long dungeon, so I just went exploring south and east of Riften to see what I could add to my map. I whacked the dragon at the lair to the south and then went wandering east down the valley to see if I could find a way up to either the ruins on my left or the tower on my right. Very shortly I came across a small house that was mostly burned down, but was still on fire. There was a charred corpse on the floor and a circle of candles in the corner of the room. I searched around for some kind of journal or note that might explain what happened, but found nothing. It might have been the dragon, but I don't recall seeing any other dragons burn down houses. Anyone know what happened here? (The house is not a discoverable location, so there is no map marker for it.) After that, I dealt with the usual bandits and a couple of Orc hunters before finding the Black-Briar Lodge. After leaving the lodge, I headed down the road to the east and spotted a Khajiit in ebony armor standing next to a horse. He attacked me on sight without saying anything and was not labeled a bandit or any other sort of person one would expect to be automatically hostile -- just "Khajiit". He wasn't carrying any notes to indicate that he was involved with the Thalmor (who apparently have an interest in seeing me dead now), and every other Khajiit I have met on the road has been peaceful, so I have no explanation for this event either. Anyone have a clue on this?