SFBryan18 Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Silverbloods because they support the Stormcloaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayFrosty05 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 Silverbloods because they support the Stormcloaks. I'm sorry, I am having a little trouble understanding your logic here.....just because they support the Stormcloaks...really?....I side with the Imperials, but still tell Elenwyn to take a hike at the Greybeard summit and am still searching for and hoping for a way to kill Mavern without breaking my game.....in the mean time I just do everything I can to undermine her.....sadly due to Bethesda's odd decisions, undermining her achieves diddly squat but my intention is there.... :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgiegril Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I usually play a redguard. frankly, though, the only group that talks any sense IMO are the Khajiit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya1997 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 As a redguard and loyal supporter of the empire, I side with neither. They're both douchebags. Granted in-game this means siding with the silver-bloods and then quietly assassinating them after the fact(though I did this only once as I tend to restart a lot). Shame there's no actual third option here. Which is something that goes for a number of quests now that I think about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFBryan18 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Silverbloods because they support the Stormcloaks. I'm sorry, I am having a little trouble understanding your logic here.....just because they support the Stormcloaks...really?....I side with the Imperials, but still tell Elenwyn to take a hike at the Greybeard summit and am still searching for and hoping for a way to kill Mavern without breaking my game.....in the mean time I just do everything I can to undermine her.....sadly due to Bethesda's odd decisions, undermining her achieves diddly squat but my intention is there.... :wallbash: Well, if you want more logic... I hate all three choices, so I go with my allies. Although, Nords and Silver-Bloods aren't necessarily a separate choice. I support the Silver-Bloods over the Foresworn, because after you help their king escape, they still attack you. Talk about being ungrateful, and the Silver-Bloods support the Stormcloaks so I repay their loyalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Well, if you want more logic... I hate all three choices, so I go with my allies. Although, Nords and Silver-Bloods aren't necessarily a separate choice. I support the Silver-Bloods over the Foresworn, because after you help their king escape, they still attack you. Talk about being ungrateful, and the Silver-Bloods support the Stormcloaks so I repay their loyalty. Madanach clearly tells you it'll take time for him to get the word out, so the Foresworn in the Reach will still see you as an enemy instead of a brother...Using that as a point against them is like blaming a cop for arresting you, post acquital, when the only means of communication is snail-courrier. And thats without considering the limitations of in-game world shaping. Honestly though, the situation with the Foresworn (previously known as the Reachmen) is a tough one. Groups of them have harried the Reach for thousands of years. Their tribal, violent, prone to rather unsavory rituals (including canibalism, necromancy, dismemberment etc.). That said, They are the original human inhabitants of the Reach, and their claim, regardless of their practices, is legitimate. By most accounts, their uprising wasn't particularly bloody until Ulfric got involved, and the Empire was willing to grant them legitimate sovreignty of Markarth, so i'm inclined to side with them. The Silverbloods, on the other hand, are vile, murderous, manipulative wretches. They represent everything wrong with wealth and power, using whats probably the only remaining source of slave labour in the Empire to maintain their own little feifdom. They all deserve to be fed to Mudcrabs. Edited August 29, 2012 by Lachdonin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFBryan18 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Well, originally I would add my Breton character to the Forsworn faction, but I learned how twisted and savage they are and decided that they were a disgrace to the Breton race. This is just my personal opinion, as ones definition of a savage and a disgrace just depend on what you value. Personally, I don't condone the kidnapping of a little girl for black magic, and it was that quest which led me in a new direction. As for the Silver-Bloods, it was quite the opposite, as I hated them until I learned that they support Ulfric, and I changed my mind. Whether or not they are evil is not really any of my concern as they are my allies and I have more important things to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayFrosty05 Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 Well, originally I would add my Breton character to the Forsworn faction, but I learned how twisted and savage they are and decided that they were a disgrace to the Breton race. This is just my personal opinion, as ones definition of a savage and a disgrace just depend on what you value. Personally, I don't condone the kidnapping of a little girl for black magic, and it was that quest which led me in a new direction. As for the Silver-Bloods, it was quite the opposite, as I hated them until I learned that they support Ulfric, and I changed my mind. Whether or not they are evil is not really any of my concern as they are my allies and I have more important things to deal with. I would consider the Forsworn situation pretty important myself....a people singled out and subjected to an abused and 3rd grade life....I don't condone the viciousness of the Forsworn, but I can certainly understand why they are so p*ssed off and reactionary.....personally I feel Ulfric and crew and the Silver-Bloods hold a great deal of responsibility in it, their hands are covered in the blood of the Reach and nothing will improve so long as they continue to have their corruption continue to aggravate the situation....I would eventually love to see either a Bethesda DLC or mod address this situation and give the option to parley for peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Personally, I don't condone the kidnapping of a little girl for black magic, and it was that quest which led me in a new direction. We don't actually know what they intended with the girl. It's just as likely they wanted her for the same reason as the Temple of Diabella, because she was a conduit to their god (we aren't actually told WHO the Old Gods are, though they are likely, themselves, Aedra, or of similar Et'ada origin). If that is the case, then technicly they were doing the exact same thing the Temple of Diabella sent you to do, take a little girl away from her family to be worshiped. The differance, of course, being that their religion isn't 'officially recognised'. Ironically, that makes the persecution of their beleifs the same as the Thalmor inquisition against Talos. All of that said, we do know that Hagravens draw their power through the corruption of nature, putting them directly at odds with the Spriggans. Despite being overtly hostile to just about everything, the Spriggan's do represent a 'good' alignment, in so far as they protect the natural order of the world. This, by default, makes Hagravens evil, which in turn means the Foresworn lean that way because of their close association with said Hagravens. Of course, not all Reachmen are Foresworn, which further muddies the waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayFrosty05 Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 Personally, I don't condone the kidnapping of a little girl for black magic, and it was that quest which led me in a new direction. We don't actually know what they intended with the girl. It's just as likely they wanted her for the same reason as the Temple of Diabella, because she was a conduit to their god (we aren't actually told WHO the Old Gods are, though they are likely, themselves, Aedra, or of similar Et'ada origin). If that is the case, then technicly they were doing the exact same thing the Temple of Diabella sent you to do, take a little girl away from her family to be worshiped. The differance, of course, being that their religion isn't 'officially recognised'. Ironically, that makes the persecution of their beleifs the same as the Thalmor inquisition against Talos. All of that said, we do know that Hagravens draw their power through the corruption of nature, putting them directly at odds with the Spriggans. Despite being overtly hostile to just about everything, the Spriggan's do represent a 'good' alignment, in so far as they protect the natural order of the world. This, by default, makes Hagravens evil, which in turn means the Foresworn lean that way because of their close association with said Hagravens. Of course, not all Reachmen are Foresworn, which further muddies the waters. Actually I always assumed the Forsworn wanted the girl for the same reason....considering the flavor of the place where they keep her, the Dibellan shrine in the tower (obviously worshiped given the offerings at the alter) and has anyone ever noticed all the Forsworn there aside from the Briar Heart are always all female?....So I just assumed it was for the girls direct connection too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts