Imperial VS Stormcloak

[MightyZ0G]

still I think both sides are good and evil at same time. and, no matter who wins, Thalmor wins.

 

a Thalmor win is almost inevitable as it makes for a better opening scenario for TESVI

[sajuukkhar9000]

a Thalmor win is almost inevitable as it makes for a better opening scenario for TESVI

Given the insane amount of heroes, cultural-gods, and last stand victories, the various Empire's have had, it seem unlikely The Thalmor will win.

 

Hell, the Empire even has forces that The Thalmor wont touch in their deck of cards, specifically the daedra. Titus Mede II didn't get Goldbrand from thin air.

 

Not to mention that The Thalmor only got close to winning the first time because they blitzkrieged The Empire when they were off guard. when The Empire actually was able to get its s*** together, they wiped the floor with The Thalmor during the battle of the red ring.

 

Its just a simple fact that Elves always lose, The Falmer, The Dwemer, the Alyeids, the Left Handed elves........

Edited May 23, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000

[MightyZ0G]

if the Empire beats the Thalmor then TESVI starts with everything fine and no crisis for the PC to deal with.

 

a Thalmor victory means that the PC gets to kick Dominion butt all over Tamriel in order to restore the Empire.

 

which scenario would you rather have at the start of TESVI?

[MidbossVyers]

 

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.

Quite the opposite. Back in the old days, heroes had a really high kill count. Even in the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, the villain almost always died a gruesome death. And then Disney and American comic books came about, and it was all "If you kill the villain, you'll become just like him" or some ridiculously naive notion like that, which resulted in the villain always escaping and coming back. I believe there was even a part in Batman when the Joker boasted that no prison could hold him. In the days of proper, real heroes, there was such a prison. It was called Hell.

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

Quite the opposite. Back in the old days, heroes had a really high kill count. Even in the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, the villain almost always died a gruesome death. And then Disney and American comic books came about, and it was all "If you kill the villain, you'll become just like him" or some ridiculously naive notion like that, which resulted in the villain always escaping and coming back. I believe there was even a part in Batman when the Joker boasted that no prison could hold him. In the days of proper, real heroes, there was such a prison. It was called Hell.

 

While later the notion was introduced that killing of any kind did not a hero make, killing of killers certainly was an exception. Killing in war, was and still is at times, still considered acceptable and in some cases that is what made them heroes (real and or mythological) what I meant by perfect is the stuff outside of that... they didn't smoke, they had no addictions, they always treated their fellow men good, they were not jealous, etc, etc.

 

Basically, the heroes of old (unless they were meant to show a hero falling from grace) had no (or virtually no) character flaws where as villains often encompassed many.

 

Skyrim was awesome with the characters of the civil war as most of them, whether they have good intentions or not, are obviously flawed and or have character flaws of some kind. Ulfric, Tullius, Legate Rikke, and Elsif especially. Not only that, but it goes beyond what we would normally define as a flaw.

 

Like in many cases, heroes just know what to do or they figure it out quickly. They just have it all together, but these guys don't. Their motivations are different, some of them are torn, and others aren't sure how to feel.

 

Despite some flaws, this game just did about as good a job as you can with this story regarding the civil war... I'd almost say they did a better job with that than the main story. *runs and ducks for cover*

[MidbossVyers]

They weren't jealous? In the original story of Hercules, Hera was the main villain because of jealousy, but in the Disney version, Zeus and Hera are literally the idealistic American family with Hades as the main villain, once again echoing the American values that the devil (guy from Hell/the Underworld) is evil, even though that actually makes no sense as such a person is supposed to punish evil.

[imperistan]

Everyone knows you go to hell for the luaus.

[sajuukkhar9000]

if the Empire beats the Thalmor then TESVI starts with everything fine and no crisis for the PC to deal with.

 

a Thalmor victory means that the PC gets to kick Dominion butt all over Tamriel in order to restore the Empire.

 

which scenario would you rather have at the start of TESVI?

 

 

You speak as though the next game has to start with the next great war already over.

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

They weren't jealous? In the original story of Hercules, Hera was the main villain because of jealousy, but in the Disney version, Zeus and Hera are literally the idealistic American family with Hades as the main villain, once again echoing the American values that the devil (guy from Hell/the Underworld) is evil, even though that actually makes no sense as such a person is supposed to punish evil.

 

Huh?

 

1.) Heroes weren't jealous or anything like that, you named villains being jealous, which they often were amongst other negative things which is what I said.

 

2.) If in some way you were actually naming a hero and or Zeus as being jealous (mind you the gods and goddesses were often negative as they weren't entirely heroes) this would not hurt and or tarnish the fact that in general my statement(s) would hold true.

 

You lost me dude. At this point it just seems like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing to be honest with ya. Good luck with that man, lol.

[Anska]

I think you have both lost each other. If I got your arguments right so far, TheObstinateNoviceSmith argued that stories used to have a clear distinction between a good and a bad side which they don't necessarily have anymore these days. In other words, the need for a story to have a moral message is gone nowadays. MidbossVyers otoh said that heroes always used to have character-flaws. Both your opinions don't even contradict themselves.

 

Take Otello for a classical example. He is a very heroic figure but he does have a very serious character-flaw too as he's incredibly jealous. His jealousy in the end becomes his downfall and the story punishes him for it with more than his own death. At the same time the story's real villain doesn't succeed either, his treachery gets uncovered, he dies as well. Evil can't win.

 

For another slightly less devious villain than Iago, take Long John Silver from the Treasure Island. He Is very clearly portrait as a bad guy, he's a pirate after all, still he isn't a complete bastard either. In the end, he is allowed to escape an Hawkins wishes him well for the rest of his life, because he will spend eternity in Hell upon his death. Again evil can't win. Even if the bad guy was portrait as morally ambiguous and as a likeable character, it is still made very clear that he will rot in Hell for his evil deeds.

 

Now compare that to Maven Blackbriar. She gets away with everything and there is not a hint of a moralisation anywhere.

 

It's not that heroes in the past didn't have bad traits, they just usually got portrait as bad traits and rarely went unpunished. The real Robin Hood might have robbed from rich and poor alike, but that's not part of his legend. In popular stories this possible bad taste to his character gets cleaned away so that he can remain a heroic figure. Similar in Greek/ Roman mythology the characters get away with about everything as long as they don't insult the gods - if they do, it will most likely be their downfall.