Lachdonin Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 In sum, I am beginning to find the Forsworn (as opposed to Reachmen) somewhat distasteful, despite their cause. I would be all for them if they limited their attacks to military/political targets (assassinate Silverbloods, Legates, Stormcloaks, etc.), I think this is a running theme with the game. People have good causes, but rarely go about them in an appropriate manner. The entire civil war scenario is a perfect example of that. Both Empire and Stormcloaks are 'right' but resort to dubious means, clouding the validity of their possitions. The came can be said for the Companions, and half the minor quests out there. The whole game is populated by people of dubious moral caliber, and the only faction which is clear in the black and white (in this case well into the black) dynamic is the Thalmor. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say, and Skyrim has been turned into a parking lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesapien Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) In sum, I am beginning to find the Forsworn (as opposed to Reachmen) somewhat distasteful, despite their cause. I would be all for them if they limited their attacks to military/political targets (assassinate Silverbloods, Legates, Stormcloaks, etc.), I think this is a running theme with the game. People have good causes, but rarely go about them in an appropriate manner. The entire civil war scenario is a perfect example of that. Both Empire and Stormcloaks are 'right' but resort to dubious means, clouding the validity of their possitions. The came can be said for the Companions, and half the minor quests out there. The whole game is populated by people of dubious moral caliber, and the only faction which is clear in the black and white (in this case well into the black) dynamic is the Thalmor. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say, and Skyrim has been turned into a parking lot. Gamers wanted lots of things to kill. The reason there are so many factions who kill anyone is so we could kill them without remorse. Same reason so many wild animals attack. The devs at Beth simply wanted the player killing Forsworn and "reverse engineered" their back story and behavior to fit such. So I really think you're reading too much into the maturity level of the authors. That running theme of yours is more like a serendipitous unintended lucky accident plug from reading between the lines. I could be wrong, but that's my assuming less approach. I don't think I could be wrong though in stating that the Thalmor are not written as absolutely bad. They have good reason to believe that Loki, I mean, Lorkhan tricked the Aedra into sacrificing parts of themselves for creating Nirn and that many Daedra who weren't able to flee were changed against their free will with many becoming mortal. The Thalmor merely want to undo this. Talos is the spawn of Lorkhan's creation who is now Divine but more akin to Satan in the RW, at least from their POV. So, to the Thalmor, Talos worship is like Satan worship. Edited February 18, 2012 by thesapien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bittermans Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 well i pulled out a vengeance with my 4th character(the Arthas), after i killed madanach and the forsworn, i killed thorvar Silver-Blood and remember, this thamor follows the philosophy of the 1st aldmeri dominion, they want all men, argonian, khajit, dummer, akavir slaved or erradicated, they want only a Altmer World the same thing goes for the forsworn, they don't care about other races, they will kill anything in their sight only for terrorism They are supremasists like nazis? Yes, Madanach is the real awnser They care only for themselves? Yes, if you listen the stories ingame they will tell that the forsworn kill even bretons and remember that thorvar played everyone on markath to tell nothing about the forsworn in the city(if you save Margaret, she will tell about him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landy8 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Perhaps the best approach is to kill him and then the Silverbloods. I've done just that on my first pass. I was a Nord fighting for Stormcloaks actually, so I helped Madanach to escape, watched his talk with that Silverblood fellow, killed the Silverblood (with pleasure), then killed Madanach. It's not that I like to kill everything I meet ;). I just thought that both sides were wrong in this conflict. Silverbloods are corrupt, everyone admits it, but the Foresworn have long gone beyond the rightful goal to reclaim their lands. They are common bandits now, overground version of Falmer as more than one poster wrote above. If you want someone to share your cause (or accept it at least) - STOP KILLING EVERYONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etang2 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 The Silver Bloods AND the Forsworn are both really malevolent groups, don't forget that at many times in Forsworn areas that are inhabited by a Hargraven, you'll find a dead Spriggan that has been tortured to death. Spriggans protect nature, the most pure thing on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yota71 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I don't like the forsom they are like our religious extremist, they are dungerous like the Thalmor and must be destroyed, and i don't like that my PG had the heart removed by a hagraven (becoming half Undead) for the sake of the cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rennn Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Except the Forsworn actually have a valid point and a solid reason to attack, instead of following a sky person who may or may not exist. Admittedly they do follow The Old Gods, but that's not the motivation for their attacks. Edited March 11, 2012 by Rennn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 At first glance, the Forsworn seem to be like the Stormcloaks, fighting for their religious and political freedom. Just like Nordish opinion on the Stormcloaks, there are Reachmen who support the Forsworn cause and others who do not. It's an interesting exercise in comparisons between two similar situations with no clear division of good/evil or right/wrong. Granted, the Forsworn religion seems somewhat ... distasteful, but I don't think this should matter as long as they don't intend to force it on anyone. There are a number of good reasons to sympathize with them and their cause. OTOH, unlike the Stormcloaks, they are wildly violent to anyone outside their own group, behaving more like terrorists. One has to wonder just what a Forsworn victory would mean for the people of the Reach, especially those who are not Reachmen. Most of the information we have on the recent history of the Reach comes from The Bear of Markarth and The "Madmen" of the Reach. The former is blatantly biased and difficult to trust. Was Madanach's rule truly a peaceful one before Ulfric reconquered the city? How many peaceful Nords, whose families had lived in the Reach for generations, were slaughtered under Forsworn rule? I think it is significant that the author felt obliged to mention Nords killed during that period despite his biases, though he minimized the importance of such incidents. "Madmen" seems more balanced, but it paints a somewhat frightening picture. As one Markarth NPC tells us, the Forsworn are still fighting over something that was settled generations ago. There comes a point where ancient injustices must be set aside, or we would all still be fighting over who conquered whom hundreds of years ago. Every human on earth is descended from someone who had injustice done to them at some point in history. Should the English keep re-fighting the Battle of Hastings? Should the French be trying to get revenge on Italians because of the actions of Julius Caesar? It's a nuanced situation full of gray areas. The oppression of the Nords is recent, affecting the current generation. Is the same true of the Forsworn, or are they still fighting the battles that their ancestors lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppleofEden Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Originally I hated the Forsworn because...well they tried to kill me multiple times! Then I realised they were Bretons and I always am a Breton. So I started thinking about it from their perspective and sympathizing with them. The I realised the sheer corruption in Markarth and how distasteful Thonar Silver-Blood is. I really hate that guy. So now I always make sure he's killed. I really don't agree with the Forsworn's tactic of killing innocents but hearing the stories in Cinda mine softened me a little. I'm very torn as my character supports Ulfric too and after hearing about the Bear of Markarth they seem so opposed. Morality is so hard in this game! I like adding a element of roleplay to my decisions so as long as I'm a Breton I'll agree with the Forsworn. That's my thoughts anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 But there is one Breton in Markarth who tells you that he has absolutely no sympathy for the Forsworn and considers them barbarians. So it isn't a simple matter of race being a determining factor, any more than all Nords agree with Ulfric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts