Cicero - Did you kill him or let him live?

[MidbossVyers]

Lachdonin says that exemplary members of the Dark Brotherhood seek to join Sithis, but the Champion of Cyrodiil, the Listener from 200 years ago, instead chose to become Sheogorath of the Shivering Isles.

[Lachdonin]

Lachdonin says that exemplary members of the Dark Brotherhood seek to join Sithis, but the Champion of Cyrodiil, the Listener from 200 years ago, instead chose to become Sheogorath of the Shivering Isles.

 

Thats something of a questionable assertion though. There is no more proof that the Listener and the new Sheogorath are the Champion of Cyrodiil than there is that the Nerevarine killed Vivec. The history of the Elder Scrolls games is written so that the possiblity remains, but the only certianty is that particular events happened. That said, Sheogorath is described as a 'Sithis shaped hole in the universe' implying that he is the most pure representation of Sithis (being absolutely bonkers, and thus chaotic) so the elevation isn't as strange as it may seem.

 

Now, the differance with the examples of botht he Cathloc Church and the Confederacy is the fact that neither are built on the fact that their orders, quite literally, come from a god. Sithis exists, that is an explicit fact, and it is by his commands the Dark Brotherhood exist.

 

Under Astrid, the Brotherhood was such in name only. It wasn't, actually, the Dark Brotherhood any more than i would be Batman if i put on the costume and ran around beating people up. This problem probably predates Astrid, however, since it seems the Brotherhood went a long time without a Listener, and without a Listener they have no way to get contracts. By all rights, they should have just sat around doing nothing.

 

Which, of course, could indicate that Sithis wanted the Dark Brotherhood purged so he could start anew, for a new age... But thats trying to divine the will of a god, and i'm not a shriveled corpse in a box...

[Stemin]

Now, the differance with the examples of botht he Cathloc Church and the Confederacy is the fact that neither are built on the fact that their orders, quite literally, come from a god. Sithis exists, that is an explicit fact, and it is by his commands the Dark Brotherhood exist.

 

I don't see how that fact changes anything. Plus, I guarantee you that a devout enough Catholic would argue that their faith came from Christ, who is part of a divinity. So if you want to argue with some bible belt Christian, knock your socks off. I don't see the point making a difference, particularly since I only used those as a comparison and the logic doesn't change.

[ClonePatrol]

The Gods are real in the Elder Scrolls, but there are some limitations they have to work within on Nirn (as opposed to on their Oblivion planes which are solely their own). Yes the Falkreath Sanctuary was the only operational Dark Brotherhood base (not necessarily the only one that wasn't destroyed), but it also hadn't come under direct attack (until Astrid's betrayal). The Gods and their servants in Mundus are always fighting amongst each other, and for that reason the influence each of them holds over Nirn (and those on it) waxes and wanes.

 

Sithis is also known as Padomay, who along with Anu is one of the two deities whose conflict brought about the creation of all the others. The Aedra who make up the Nine Divines and are part of the more 'mainstream' religions on Nirn at the time are Anuic deities, the Daedric Princes are Padomaic deities. The Dark Brotherhood is in some ways the clergy of Sithis, if his influence wanes it's their duty to try and bring it back into prominence. Sithis needs more followers, shrines, etc. to bring about his will in Nirn, and will still be competing against other powers for that. The Night Mother was the chosen of Sithis, a position she gained by having children fathered by him and then sacrificing them to go to Sithis and the Void (again, debatably evil since the afterlife does exist in Mundus, death amounting to a simple transition to another plane, with Lucien Lachance even being able to be summoned back from the Void as a spectre). Like the Aedra who are said to have lost much of their power in the creation of Nirn, it's possible that the same can be said of Anu and Padomay in their creation of the Aedra and Daedra.

 

The mortal remains of a person on Nirn serve as a means by which their immortal soul (residing on another plane) can continue to interact with the world. The Night Mother, as the chosen of Sithis, for whatever reason was the only known mortal who has ever been in direct contact with Sithis and she continues to use her mortal remains as a medium through which to communicate contracts to the Dark Brotherhood (something that a Listener seems to have to be in close proximity to her remains to do). Her reasons for only speaking to one individual, the Listener, may have something to do with practical limits to her power (perhaps requiring some sort of bond that can only exist with one person at a time). The specific criteria the Night Mother uses to choose a Listener are unknown, but it can be assumed that there is some sort of criteria she uses. How much of her power is required for her to 'hear' the contracts being made (or do anything else) is another thing that's unclear, but certainly it requires some expenditure.

 

Whether or not the Dark Brotherhood under Astrid was still the Dark Brotherhood can be a hard question to answer partly because it depends on how you define the Dark Brotherhood and it may even have some to do with Theseus' Paradox. In this case, if you replace all of the beliefs and traditions of the Dark Brotherhood, but retain it's primary function is it still the same organization? If you define the Dark Brotherhood and it's function simply as a secretive order of assassins for hire who wear specific armor and go by that name as many in Tamriel probably do then the answer I'd lean towards would be yes. But, if you define the Dark Brotherhood as a secretive order of devout assassins for hire who are (albeit not openly) the clergy of Sithis under the leadership of the Night Mother (Sithis' Chosen) that work to spread his influence then the answer I'd lean towards would be no. Still, it can probably be debated to no end with lots of different arguments for both sides.

 

It can't really be said that the Dark Brotherhood wouldn't have been decimated if not for Cicero either, because the Dragonborn can wipe out the Falkreath Sanctuary himself if he so chooses, and if he does do so neither Babette or Cicero and the Night Mother will be present at the time he does so, creating the possibility that the Dark Brotherhood can still potentially be rebuilt (likely in Dawnstar) and providing the needed 'cleansing' for the Dark Brotherhood. Also of note if this option is pursued, it's only possible because Astrid abducted the Dragonborn without any decent contingencies just in case he wasn't receptive to her offer, and apparently she had already allowed her Sanctuary to be compromised by Commander Maro:

 

The leader of the Dark Brotherhood? You mean Astrid? Dead? And this is no jest? Ha! This is a good stroke of fortune. Long have I watched the Dark Brotherhood's movements... waiting for the time to strike. That time is now! My agents have recently acquired the passphrase to their Sanctuary. It is, "Silence, my brother." Every assassin in that hole must be put down! You, my friend. You've slain their leader. This honor should be yours. Do this, and you will be rewarded most handsomely!

 

In this way, the destruction of the Dark Brotherhood under Astrid could be considered inevitable. The reformation of the Dark Brotherhood as Sithis or the Night Mother wills it (if they do) may also be inevitable, the very near total destruction of the Dark Brotherhood (as Sithis' clergy) could be considered a large setback for the deity in his struggle to extend his influence on Nirn (the struggle that all the deities are involved in), but it wouldn't destroy him and the Dark Brotherhood could still potentially be reformed. Even were the Night Mother's remains destroyed it would be possible (in theory) for him to find a new leader for his followers or to find some other way for her to communicate with them.

 

It can be assumed to some degree though, that as powerful as the Dragonborn was (probably why he was made the Listener) if Astrid hadn't betrayed him (and thus the Dark Brotherhood) to Commander Maro then things would likely have played out very differently for them all. Perhaps the Dragonborn would have been present if and when Commander Maro had decided to attack the Sanctuary (in which case Maro's men would most certainly be defeated), perhaps he'd have been killed when the Dragonborn killed the fake Emperor (or maybe it'd have been the real Emperor without Astrid's warning), maybe by the time that Sanctuary had been attacked the Dragonborn would have restored it to sufficient power to defend itself whether he was there or not. What can be said with a fair amount of certainty though, is that Astrid's actions were to blame for what happened and not Cicero or the Dragonborn.

[AnkhAscendant]

...........................

It can be assumed to some degree though, that as powerful as the Dragonborn was (probably why he was made the Listener) if Astrid hadn't betrayed him (and thus the Dark Brotherhood) to Commander Maro then things would likely have played out very differently for them all. Perhaps the Dragonborn would have been present if and when Commander Maro had decided to attack the Sanctuary (in which case Maro's men would most certainly be defeated), perhaps he'd have been killed when the Dragonborn killed the fake Emperor (or maybe it'd have been the real Emperor without Astrid's warning), maybe by the time that Sanctuary had been attacked the Dragonborn would have restored it to sufficient power to defend itself whether he was there or not. What can be said with a fair amount of certainty though, is that Astrid's actions were to blame for what happened and not Cicero or the Dragonborn.

 

That was (all, not just the quote part) very enjoyable to read, and not just because we're on the same side. ;) Kudos for having too much time on your hands and a deep investment into the lore of Tamriel... Thank you.

[Stemin]

It can be assumed to some degree though, that as powerful as the Dragonborn was (probably why he was made the Listener) if Astrid hadn't betrayed him (and thus the Dark Brotherhood) to Commander Maro then things would likely have played out very differently for them all. Perhaps the Dragonborn would have been present if and when Commander Maro had decided to attack the Sanctuary (in which case Maro's men would most certainly be defeated), perhaps he'd have been killed when the Dragonborn killed the fake Emperor (or maybe it'd have been the real Emperor without Astrid's warning), maybe by the time that Sanctuary had been attacked the Dragonborn would have restored it to sufficient power to defend itself whether he was there or not. What can be said with a fair amount of certainty though, is that Astrid's actions were to blame for what happened and not Cicero or the Dragonborn.

 

Please. You're playing "what if" to try and make a point. What if Cicero never showed up at the sanctuary at all? No contract to kill the Emperor, Gaius Maro never dies, but no conflict either, and Astrid develops a real trust in the dragonborn and there is no betrayal.

[ClonePatrol]

It can be assumed to some degree though, that as powerful as the Dragonborn was (probably why he was made the Listener) if Astrid hadn't betrayed him (and thus the Dark Brotherhood) to Commander Maro then things would likely have played out very differently for them all. Perhaps the Dragonborn would have been present if and when Commander Maro had decided to attack the Sanctuary (in which case Maro's men would most certainly be defeated), perhaps he'd have been killed when the Dragonborn killed the fake Emperor (or maybe it'd have been the real Emperor without Astrid's warning), maybe by the time that Sanctuary had been attacked the Dragonborn would have restored it to sufficient power to defend itself whether he was there or not. What can be said with a fair amount of certainty though, is that Astrid's actions were to blame for what happened and not Cicero or the Dragonborn.

 

Please. You're playing "what if" to try and make a point. What if Cicero never showed up at the sanctuary at all? No contract to kill the Emperor, Gaius Maro never dies, but no conflict either, and Astrid develops a real trust in the dragonborn and there is no betrayal.

 

Cicero did show up though, and it wasn't wrong of him to do so. He never betrayed the Dark Brotherhood. Astrid did though.

 

And as I said, the game makes it clear that the Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary was already compromised by Commander Maro and the Penitus Oculatus before the Dragonborn ever joins them. Cicero was on his way to the Sanctuary even if the Dragonborn doesn't join, and the Dragonborn can destroy the Sanctuary before he arrives.

 

Cicero didn't take any actions not in keeping with Dark Brotherhood policies. Astrid abandoned the Five Tenets (which weren't very restrictive to her at all) and took a great many actions that put her and the entire Sanctuary at extreme risk. At a point in time when she believed the Dragonborn had already saved her husband and killed Cicero for her; was right about to kill the Emperor making them rich and bringing the Dark Brotherhood back to prominence, she turned him over to the Pentus Oculatus. Rather than simply asking the Dragonborn to leave afterwards, perhaps to take the Night Mother and reopen the Dawnstar Sanctuary she knew he had the pass-phrase to (a reasonable request that would have achieved the same goals she was working towards), she betrayed him. It doesn't matter how loyally the Dragonborn acts towards her, she betrays him.

 

Astrid trusted a person (Maro) who not only had every reason to want to kill them all, but no reason whatsoever to trust them or to hold up his end of the bargain they made. Cicero never betrays anyone on the level that Astrid does, the only truly unsound decision he makes is attacking Arnbjorn in anger. The logic behind decisions is what's in question. Astrid made poor decisions repeatedly, Cicero not so much. He's a jester and thus acts eccentrically (the way you'd expect a jester to act), but there is a method to his madness. He was capable of coherent thought, and forward planning. Cicero didn't deserve to die, Astrid may not have deserved to die either but her death was the end result of a long line of bad decisions that put her own life and that of her 'family' in jeopardy.

[Stemin]

Cicero did show up though, and it wasn't wrong of him to do so. He never betrayed the Dark Brotherhood. Astrid did though.

 

And as I said, the game makes it clear that the Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary was already compromised by Commander Maro and the Penitus Oculatus before the Dragonborn ever joins them. Cicero was on his way to the Sanctuary even if the Dragonborn doesn't join, and the Dragonborn can destroy the Sanctuary before he arrives.

 

Cicero didn't take any actions not in keeping with Dark Brotherhood policies. Astrid abandoned the Five Tenets (which weren't very restrictive to her at all) and took a great many actions that put her and the entire Sanctuary at extreme risk. At a point in time when she believed the Dragonborn had already saved her husband and killed Cicero for her; was right about to kill the Emperor making them rich and bringing the Dark Brotherhood back to prominence, she turned him over to the Pentus Oculatus. Rather than simply asking the Dragonborn to leave afterwards, perhaps to take the Night Mother and reopen the Dawnstar Sanctuary she knew he had the pass-phrase to (a reasonable request that would have achieved the same goals she was working towards), she betrayed him. It doesn't matter how loyally the Dragonborn acts towards her, she betrays him.

 

Astrid trusted a person (Maro) who not only had every reason to want to kill them all, but no reason whatsoever to trust them or to hold up his end of the bargain they made. Cicero never betrays anyone on the level that Astrid does, the only truly unsound decision he makes is attacking Arnbjorn in anger. The logic behind decisions is what's in question. Astrid made poor decisions repeatedly, Cicero not so much. He's a jester and thus acts eccentrically (the way you'd expect a jester to act), but there is a method to his madness. He was capable of coherent thought, and forward planning. Cicero didn't deserve to die, Astrid may not have deserved to die either but her death was the end result of a long line of bad decisions that put her own life and that of her 'family' in jeopardy.

 

How hypocritical. Cicero violated the 5 tenets when he attacked a DB member.

[StayFrosty05]

........................... Cicero didn't deserve to die, Astrid may not have deserved to die either but her death was the end result of a long line of bad decisions that put her own life and that of her 'family' in jeopardy.

 

I'm sorry....though I always destroy the DB and have no intention of doing otherwise.....(have the Official Guide and read through the story line....have no interest).....but have been keeping up with this thread out of curiosity about peoples perceptions of the DB....your posts ClonePatrol have made very interesting reading...thank you...I have been enjoying them.... :happy: .....But this line here...hmmm....their murderous Assassins for hire, how do they not deserve to die?

Edited October 16, 2012 by StayFrosty05

[ClonePatrol]

 

How hypocritical. Cicero violated the 5 tenets when he attacked a DB member.

 

Astrid and Arnbjorn didn't follow the Five Tenets and repeatedly broke them, they had no reason to expect to be protected by them (abandoning them alone may have been reason enough for them to be eliminated from the Dark Brotherhood). Astrid was the leader of a Sanctuary, not a member of the Black Hand (only the Black Hand are true leaders of the Dark Brotherhood and aren't bound by the Five Tenets). Whether Cicero violated one of the Five Tenets when he attacked Arnbjorn, or whether he carried out his obligations to them (Arnbjorn insulted the Night Mother and so Cicero tried to show him the wrath of Sithis), is open to interpretation. Cicero also didn't kill Arnbjorn or Veezara, though he may have if he'd been allowed to. He wounded them, Tenet Five specifies killing. It's a technicality sure, but you put a bunch of killers under one roof and sometimes people are goona get stabbed (especially when they keep insulting, i.e. picking fights, with other people), that should really be pretty obvious.

 

........................... Cicero didn't deserve to die, Astrid may not have deserved to die either but her death was the end result of a long line of bad decisions that put her own life and that of her 'family' in jeopardy.

 

I'm sorry....though I always destroy the DB and have no intention of doing otherwise.....(have the Official Guide and read through the story line....have no interest).....but have been keeping up with this thread out of curiosity about peoples perceptions of the DB....your posts ClonePatrol have made very interesting reading...thank you...I have been enjoying them.... :happy: .....But this line here...hmmm....their murderous Assassins for hire, how do they not deserve to die?

 

The Dark Brotherhood are assassins (killers) for hire (not necessarily murderers), the morality of what they do as a profession is itself debatable. Lot's of people do or are perfectly willing to kill for money and they aren't thought of as bad people, and people in that sort of work are seldom allowed to pick and choose who they kill. In the US (among other places) guards and doctors who work for prisons are expected to execute inmates sentenced to death if the courts tell them to do so, they can quit over it if it comes down to it, but it's pretty much going to happen one way or another. Even in states with no death penalties the law can be changed, and those people have to decide what that means to them. Many doctors are willing to kill terminally ill patients to end their suffering even though it's illegal in most places. A police officer may only kill in defense of people as the situation warrants it, but a soldier is expected to kill who they are told to kill whether they know the exact reason or not. Whether the people willing to do these jobs are the villains of the world or the heroes is contentious, but I've always held to the idea that a persons motivations for their actions are just as important as deciding whether they made the right decision or not.

 

The Dark Brotherhood chooses who they're willing to kill and they are likely able to set prices as they see fit. The Dragonborn receives a contract from Muiri to kill the bandit leader Alain Dufont, a despicable man who's death may be justified (if he already isn't wanted dead or alive by "legitimate" authorities), and is also given the option of killing Nilsene Shatter-Shield (under much shakier pretenses) which he can refuse. The Dark Brotherhood makes money largely as very specialized mercenaries, and there are lots of mercenaries in Tamriel.

 

After all, you can get quests from Farkas of the (supposedly honorable) Companions to "rough up" various NPCs, the first one of those I ever got was for Carlotta "just-trying-to-make-enough-money-for-her-daughter" Valentina in Whiterun. Generic "hired thugs" can be hired and sent after the Dragonborn and will try and kill them over trespassing or petty theft.

 

When most PCs in TES games have to be willing to kill for money, I've never really seen any reason for them to not join the Dark Brotherhood on principle alone or to judge the people to harshly just for being members. A lot of the contracts given have back story that makes them seem no less justified than the people they're told to kill by characters who probably wouldn't come across as evil (killing the vampires at Half Moon Mill for a DB contract, and killing the vampires of Morthal for Jarl Idgrod?). After all, what's the real difference between the Dragonborn killing the Emperor for Amaund Mottierre and the Dragonborn killing the Forsworn King Madanach for Thonar Silver-Blood? Or joining the Forsworn and killing Thonar Silver-Blood for Madanach instead? If you side with the Stormcloaks you have a really good reason to accept the contract to kill the Emperor, if you join the imperials not so much, if decide to stay out of it... Sometimes everyone involved is taking part in actions that are very open to interpretation morally. When the issues aren't black and white you just have to way your options and pick a side. And if you don't care either way? Business is business.

 

Then there's always the fact that killing one person may spare a lot more. Amaund Mottierre wanted the Emperor dead and implied that he was not alone in this. If the Dark Brotherhood hadn't accepted the contract, who knows how many may have died in a more direct military attempt on the Emperor's life if members of the Elder Council (the most powerful nobles in the land) rose up against him in Cyrodiil? Maybe they wouldn't have risen up, maybe they would and thousands would have died, maybe thousands will in fighting resulting from a power struggle, maybe the Council will easily pick a new Emperor that everyone is more satisfied with. Grey, grey, and more grey.

 

Anyway, the members of the Dark Brotherhood are generally comfortable killing for money (or personal gain of some sort), they're hardly alone in that and I don't think it makes them bad people. If they were constantly conflicted about the morality of their chosen vocation they probably wouldn't be all that good at it. An organization is just a group of people, the people in it are individuals with complex motivations. Astrid seems motivated by the power, Arnbjorn seems to do it to sate his blood lust, Veezara kills because that's what he was raised to do all his life, Gabriella seems to romanticize death itself, Babette as a vampire who's forever 10 years old probably doesn't have too many other options, Festus seems to use it as a way to further his research into Destruction magic. We don't really get any examples of what, if anything, they aren't comfortable with, but there's no reason to assume none of them have a line they aren't willing to cross. No reason to assume that if they're instructed to do something truly reprehensible they won't leave, like many people in similar jobs have done throughout history.