Moral Dilemma: Joining the Dark Brotherhood

[Boombro]

Moral dilemma of joining the dark brotherhood:

 

Murdering people to appease an ancient corpse.

How dare you, talking about my dear mother like that!?

[Valkasha]

I thought I killed you Cicero?

[Amoryenar]

My biggest dilemma in the dark brotherhood questline is... which one is guilty

 

tbh i never kill the big guy but that leaves 2 candidates, the khaj'iit or the woman.

 

Whenever i kill one i'm left wondering "what if i was wrong?"

 

often times when i leave i keep wondering if they make it out even though it's a video game

 

all these thoughts over a video game o_O

[Amoryenar]

oh and i never kill cicero... i killed him in the xbox version i'll never do it again

[Valkasha]

It is impossible to find out. Astrid is simply testing you: she says kill and you kill. All she wants to know is whether you are prepared to follow her command even if it means killing an innocent person. If anything kill the bandit, you can at least be certain he is a criminal. The Kha'jit could be a criminal but you don't have proof, he might just be a smartypants. The woman is just an old crone, no reason to just go and kill her for that. In the end all of them could be innocent, thus killing Astrid, a dark brotherhood member so most certainly not innocent, is the only *good* course of action.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Valkasha

[TheVampireDante]

Most likely scenarios? They are all guilty of something - Or at least have a contract out on them.

 

Astrid uses the opportunity of having those three on the brotherhood "to do" list as your initiation trial, but each of them would have been killed anyway.

 

You kill one and leave - she's going to take out the remaining two before she leaves. You kill all three, you've exceeded her expectations, saved her a bit of time and are welcomed to the brotherhood with a smile.

[Kestrellius]

Oh hey a Homestuck fan.

 

On my first DB run, I lightning-stormed all three of them. Honestly, though, I'd kill the one who isn't the Khajiit. The Khajiit is just so nonchalant about the whole thing.

[Valkasha]

Most likely scenarios? Tthey are all guilty of something - Or at least have a contract out on them.

 

Astrid uses the opportunity of having those three on the brotherhood "to do" list as your initiation trial, but each of them would have been killed anyway.

 

You kill one and leave - she's going to take out the remaining two before she leaves. You kill all three, you've exceeded her expectations, saved her a bit of time and are welcomed to the brotherhood with a smile.

 

Umm having a contract out on you doesn't mean you committed a crime, the dark brotherhood is not a police force. Also she says ONE of them has a contract on them. The dark brotherhood doesn't care about colateral damage, they just want you to get the job done, some of the DB members make their kills in broad daylight with destruction magic, they don't seem to care about getting caught and drawing attention to them, some jobs are actually SUPPOSED to draw attention/send a message.

 

But all of that doesn't matter, we were discussing morals here. The only choice is to kill Astrid, because she is a murderer with 100% certainty while the other three don't deserve to die as far as you know, you have no idea what they have done in their lives. Saying they are guilty of something is stupid. Whenever I make the kill in this quest I'm like: this makes me feel like a dumb sheep. I prefer killing Astrid for it's the only logical thing to do, I'm not killing anyone because I supposedly *owe someone a kill* killing is not a property.

 

Besides the darkbrotherhood had all the time in the world to respond to Aventus Aretino's request, even a damn guard of Markarth had heard of the boy summoning the dark brotherhood. Which makes you wonder why noone went and stopped him, oh well.

[TheVampireDante]

Did you miss this bit?

 

They are all guilty of something - Or at least have a contract out on them.

 

 

 

"or" not "and".

 

I listed two points. I'll split them for you.

 

1. They are guilty of something.

or

2. They have a contract out on them.

 

I know they don't require being guilty of something to have a contract on them, althought it's generally a common point.

 

 

Also she says ONE of them has a contract on them.

 

...and you expected her to tell you the truth? It's a test, of course she's not going to be honest about it - she's controlling the situation. For all you know it could be the other way around and none of them have a contract out on them and she's grabbed three people she knows are complete asses.

 

As for not caring about collateral damage? You don't get hired for high risk assassinations if you do sloppy work. Yes - some jobs require drawing attention - doesn't mean you go and kill the entire crowd. Take the wedding for example - you do that job, place goes crazy - do you kill everyone in your way on the exit?

No, you run past everyone and make your escape, the only combat being done is by your fellow assassin, and that's just to give you time to escape. He's acting as your shield while you get out of there.

 

 

Besides the darkbrotherhood had all the time in the world to respond to Aventus Aretino's request, even a damn guard of Markarth had heard of the boy summoning the dark brotherhood. Which makes you wonder why noone went and stopped him, oh well.

 

Timeline on that it is irrelevant - it's a gameplay mechanic to introduce you to the Dark Brotherhood. If it was realtime and they did the job then there would have to be some other quest to introduce you, or you've missed out on their section of the game because the times passed (which would annoy players wanting to join).

As for guards stopping him? Most people tend to stay out of Brotherhood business - purely on the off chance that interfering gets them killed.

[Valkasha]

Did you miss this bit?

 

They are all guilty of something - Or at least have a contract out on them.

 

 

 

"or" not "and".

 

I listed two points. I'll split them for you.

 

1. They are guilty of something.

or

2. They have a contract out on them.

 

I know they don't require being guilty of something to have a contract on them, althought it's generally a common point.

 

 

Also she says ONE of them has a contract on them.

 

...and you expected her to tell you the truth? It's a test, of course she's not going to be honest about it - she's controlling the situation. For all you know it could be the other way around and none of them have a contract out on them and she's grabbed three people she knows are complete asses.

 

As for not caring about collateral damage? You don't get hired for high risk assassinations if you do sloppy work. Yes - some jobs require drawing attention - doesn't mean you go and kill the entire crowd. Take the wedding for example - you do that job, place goes crazy - do you kill everyone in your way on the exit?

No, you run past everyone and make your escape, the only combat being done is by your fellow assassin, and that's just to give you time to escape. He's acting as your shield while you get out of there.

 

 

 

You are only strengthening my point... You claimed they are guilty of something or have a contract on them, you don't know that for sure thus you should not kill them. It's senseless murder of people you don't know. The only morally acceptable choice is to kill Astrid, second best choice is the bandit since you're certain he's a criminal.