MidbossVyers Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Nowadays even evil queens turn out to be nothing more than emotional little snowflakes who happen to know dark magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nodtveidt Posted May 19, 2013 Share Posted May 19, 2013 The Both Factions are weak as hell in Skyrim, if the Stormcloaks beat the Empire in Skyrim i think the elves crushes all of Skyrim. it's a hard choice..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheObstinateNoviceSmith Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Nowadays even evil queens turn out to be nothing more than emotional little snowflakes who happen to know dark magic. Sounds like you watch the same show I do, lol. But yeah, nowadays "villains" are just more realistic as while there really are people that are just wired to do wrong, those people are rare. People often require things to happen in order to reach certain levels of depravity. But my point was just that neither side in the civil war is "the bad guy" as there are valid reasons for both causes, the misguided reasoning, and the ugly side on both sides of that battlefield. The Both Factions are weak as hell in Skyrim, if the Stormcloaks beat the Empire in Skyrim i think the elves crushes all of Skyrim. it's a hard choice..... Did you just go to a bunch of threads to post something negative in all of them? Not very Paladin like if ya ask me? Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Nowadays even evil queens turn out to be nothing more than emotional little snowflakes who happen to know dark magic. Sounds like you watch the same show I do, lol. But yeah, nowadays "villains" are just more realistic as while there really are people that are just wired to do wrong, those people are rare. People often require things to happen in order to reach certain levels of depravity. But my point was just that neither side in the civil war is "the bad guy" as there are valid reasons for both causes, the misguided reasoning, and the ugly side on both sides of that battlefield. >The Both Factions are weak as hell in Skyrim, if the Stormcloaks beat the Empire in Skyrim i think the elves crushes all of Skyrim. it's a hard choice..... Did you just go to a bunch of threads to post something negative in all of them? Not very Paladin like if ya ask me? Lol. Well, Dong Zhuo is a historical figure who was fairly evil and only to get "food, wine, and women". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheObstinateNoviceSmith Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Nowadays even evil queens turn out to be nothing more than emotional little snowflakes who happen to know dark magic. Sounds like you watch the same show I do, lol. But yeah, nowadays "villains" are just more realistic as while there really are people that are just wired to do wrong, those people are rare. People often require things to happen in order to reach certain levels of depravity. But my point was just that neither side in the civil war is "the bad guy" as there are valid reasons for both causes, the misguided reasoning, and the ugly side on both sides of that battlefield. >The Both Factions are weak as hell in Skyrim, if the Stormcloaks beat the Empire in Skyrim i think the elves crushes all of Skyrim. it's a hard choice..... Did you just go to a bunch of threads to post something negative in all of them? Not very Paladin like if ya ask me? Lol.Well, Dong Zhuo is a historical figure who was fairly evil and only to get "food, wine, and women". That may or may not be true and even still, we aren't sure if there were factors that lead to that being the case... and even if there weren't and that person was in fact truly evil in every way, that is one person out of how many historical figures? Like I said, those kind of people do exist, but they are the exception and not the rule. In older stories, the common thing was that evil was just evil simply to be evil and they were just bad in every way. There would be virtually no debate as to who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in those kind of stories (except when someone just wanted to be an a-hole and just say the opposite of what was obviously the intent of the writers) and while this still will happen to this day (like with Transformers or G.I. Joe) it is becoming more and more common to either make it to where neither side in a war is evil or the good guy or to make the bad guys have more background and or reason for being the way they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShamanMcLamie Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 In my personal opinion Titus Mede II is a political and strategic genius. I like to compare him to Maria Theresa in some regards. Although both their Empires actually were diminished during their reigns . Their great achievements were saving their Empires against insurmountable odds and forces that were set to destroy it. The Medic Empire in the years prior to the great war had been slowly picked away at by the Thalmor. When it came to the underground war of spies and suberversion the Thalmor had crushed the Empire. The Great War started off with the Thalmor Diplomat dumping the heads of the all the blades agents they killed in front of the Emperor. At the onset of the war the Legion's were not on par to face the Dominion. I'd like to highlight the Emperor's moves that probably saved the Empire and improvinging it's odds for survival. Initially refusing the Thalmor terms, starting the great war and accepting most of them at the end of the war in the White Gold Concordat. This one sounds bad, but when you think about it. There would have been hell to pay if he accepted such terms without a fight. It would have shown that the Empire and the Emperor were terribly weak that hey couldn't even fight. Leaders on numerous levels of government in the Empire would be crying for the Emperor's abdication, or removal and seccessionist sentiments would have been great. Once they'd gone through the horror of the Great War, those in the Empire would be begging for peace. It was particularly important that he accept such terms after the Empire's victory at the Battle of the Red Ring. So the Empire didn't look so helpless when signing the treaty. Abandoning the Imperial City when the Thalmor's main force in Cyrodiil were on the verge of besieging it. Instead of holding out and being captured, or killed defending the city and having his Legion's decimated Titus Mede II abondoned it letting it get sacked. At the time this looked horrible and the Thalmor were certain they'd won and the Empire would surrender soon, but the Emperor was able to gather his Legion's in Cyrodiil and was able to utilize fresh Legion's from Skyrim and the crucial Legion from Hammerfell that snuck out without the Thalmor knowing. He was able surround the Imperial City recapture it and destroy the main Thalmor force in Cyrodiil. It was said that the Infamous Thalmor General Lord Naarifin was left hanging from the White-Gold Tower for thirty days. Losing such a force was a huge blow to the Thalmor and allowed the Empire to end the war not looking like a kicked puppy, but a bruised Lion still capable of defending itself. Allowing Hammerfell to leave the Empire. I think letting Hammerfell leave without issue was important. If Titus Mede II sent his legions to keep Hammerfell in the Empire he would spent blood and treasure on holding territory he had agreed to surrender a good portion of to the Aldmeri Dominion and couldn't defend Hammerfell because the Empire was still licking it's wounds from the Great War. It was much better to just let them leave the Empire and the Thalmor get bogged down fighting them. In my opinion it could only have worked better for the Empire if the Thalmor fought longer. The Thalmor wasted blood and treasure trying to retain control of certain regions in Hammerfell. The Thalmor realized they needed to reserve their strength so they can fight the Empire and gave up on Hammerfell. If there was no Empire looming nearby the Thalmor probably would have kept up the fight and secured their gains in Hammerfell. Let's not forget that fact when saying Hammerfell held off the Thalmor. In the end the Thalmor gained nothing from Hammerfell only losing blood and treasure and when the Empire and the Dominion go back to war Hammerfell being a land of men will likely side with the Empire. The difference with Skyrim is the Thalmor aren't going to take a chunk of it after the war and is crucial for providing troops when war breaks out with the Thalmor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Nowadays even evil queens turn out to be nothing more than emotional little snowflakes who happen to know dark magic. Sounds like you watch the same show I do, lol. But yeah, nowadays "villains" are just more realistic as while there really are people that are just wired to do wrong, those people are rare. People often require things to happen in order to reach certain levels of depravity. But my point was just that neither side in the civil war is "the bad guy" as there are valid reasons for both causes, the misguided reasoning, and the ugly side on both sides of that battlefield. >The Both Factions are weak as hell in Skyrim, if the Stormcloaks beat the Empire in Skyrim i think the elves crushes all of Skyrim. it's a hard choice..... Did you just go to a bunch of threads to post something negative in all of them? Not very Paladin like if ya ask me? Lol.Well, Dong Zhuo is a historical figure who was fairly evil and only to get "food, wine, and women". That may or may not be true and even still, we aren't sure if there were factors that lead to that being the case... and even if there weren't and that person was in fact truly evil in every way, that is one person out of how many historical figures? Like I said, those kind of people do exist, but they are the exception and not the rule. In older stories, the common thing was that evil was just evil simply to be evil and they were just bad in every way. There would be virtually no debate as to who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in those kind of stories (except when someone just wanted to be an a-hole and just say the opposite of what was obviously the intent of the writers) and while this still will happen to this day (like with Transformers or G.I. Joe) it is becoming more and more common to either make it to where neither side in a war is evil or the good guy or to make the bad guys have more background and or reason for being the way they are. Similarly, heroes were never supposed to be shining paragons of justice. If Robin Hood did exist, do you honestly think he only stole from the rich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheObstinateNoviceSmith Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) MidbossVyers, on 21 May 2013 - 14:15, said:Similarly, heroes were never supposed to be shining paragons of justice. If Robin Hood did exist, do you honestly think he only stole from the rich?Very good point. (though I do feel that him only stealing from the rich is very possible and likely similar to murderers/assassins that won't kill innocent bystanders) But you're right. Heroes have become more realistic as well over time. Initially, they were perfect and without flaw in many stories, but now they don't always do the right thing and if they do, it is clear that they struggle to do so just like real people commonly do. That is why I just feel this war thing was actually done extremely well, I mean if you check out Amalur (I know it is blasphemy to mention a game not Bethesda here but forgive me please lol) they did war in a way that is pretty typical. Clearly a good side and clearly a bad side (philosophy debating aside of course) and while I liked the game, I came right back to Skyrim and I think part of it was the depth of the story Skryim offered by comparison (amongst tons (hehe "TONS") of other reasons) and so a debate like Imperials vs. Stormcloaks could literally go on forever (and basically has) and that is how you know it was done well. EDIT: There was too much grey going on. Edited May 22, 2013 by TheObstinateNoviceSmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyZ0G Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 That is why I just feel this war thing was actually done extremely well, I mean if you check out Amalur (I know it is blasphemy to mention a game not Bethesda here but forgive me please lol) they did war in a way that is pretty typical. Clearly a good side and clearly a bad side (philosophy debating aside of course) and while I liked the game, I came right back to Skyrim and I think part of it was the depth of the story Skryim offered by comparison (amongst tons (hehe "TONS") of other reasons) and so a debate like Imperials vs. Stormcloaks could literally go on forever (and basically has) and that is how you know it was done well. EDIT: There was too much grey going on. agreed, the fact that people are discussing this in quite a bit of depth for so long shows that they got the background to the civil war almost perfect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letthehammerfall Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 still I think both sides are good and evil at same time. and, no matter who wins, Thalmor wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts